I am Native Hawaiian of a chiefly line, but errors occurred in the Kalakaua dyanasty that sealed the Kingdom's fate. Both Kalakaua and Liliu were extravogant in their spending and they were incompetent as rulers. Strong willed, stubborn and impulsive. This lead to concerns by the Hawaiian community. Her attempt to initiate a revised constitution that would give her more power was of concern, since the dynasty was already impetuous. Liliu's signing of abdication concluded the revolution. Pau
@MolokaiAlika if you're kanaka of a chiefly line, why are you spewing inaccuracies? And you're not of a Molokai line that's for sure. You use Kalakaua's spending & Liliu's (not sure where you got that idea from) as a means to justify the 1887 imposition while avoiding my counter-arguments. Liliu was putting back the 1864C, NOT giving herself more power. The 1887C took away the Executive branch to make decision that was ALREADY counter-signed by cabinet members & ratified by the legislature.
Well, if Queen Emma would have won the election and not Kalakaua, perhaps history would have played out totally differently. The Kalakaua dynasty was an embarassment to na kanaka maoli. Lets not white wash the facts with revisionism. These individuals in the Kalakaua dynasty including Kaiulani were not "TOA" as the Kamehameha line, kaumaha e.
@MolokaiAlika There you go w/ your Emma theory but can't state how things would turn out based on whatever you believe it to be mr. "I come from a chiefly line" but can't state that line.
@Hawnguy100. That's right. The Ku'e petitions did say "We, the undersign urnestly PROTEST of annexation against any form or shaped" We did not wanted to become part of the U.S. But the U.S. congress in the end ingnored it! Even the movie mentioned that.
The person who payed Queen Liliuokalani said, "The Kanaka signed a petition, which was ingnored!" That part was true.
Yes in the end, it sounds like, the Hawaiians welcomed America. Even the Princess said that. But that we know is a lie!
@DeltaEagle7700 There were irregularities in the petition in that there were duplication of signatures, and parents signed for their children even those whoe were still infants. There were other irregularities that held the petition as questionable, e.g., changing ages as afterthoughts.
@MolokaiAlika I heard of these ridiculous statements of how people try to invalidate the petition. But the petitions were nothing more, like any other petition verification of what the people thought. Remember the petition was only against the US Annexation, something that was ILLEGAL! That's what you're failing to acknowledge. You're talking about children signing when in reality at that time not even WOMEN were voting.
I agree with that! I 100% agree with that! The first time I watched this movie, the first scenes were agreeable. However the last scene was not to me. Because as what you said, that sound kinda true. I said to myself, "Wait a minute! So Hawaii annexation to the United States was a GOOD thing?!" Because it sounds like the Hawaiians wanted to become Americans.
@karebear0410 I can't find why you're commenting about the bankruptcy part but u replied to bikinivette, but I wanted to add (w/o knowing why you said that), the reason for the 1887 constitution was b/c Thurston & others felt that the King was spending too laviously & were afraid that their thriving economy would collapse, esp. w/ the recent tariffs put on by the US for THEIR sugar. Basically now they had to pay which meant money taken from their profits, so they revolted.
@karebear0410 Even when Robert Lous Stevenson visited Honolulu he remarked at how it looked like a mini-SF. The palace had telephone service before the White House did, there were trolly cars in the streets of Honolulu, there were Hawn. embassies in diff. countries & other embassies in Honolulu, they had a thriving economy, they had citizenship, denizens, the whole works.
@karebear0410 But remember, let's not add any premature racism here BELIEVING that the HK simply had to be taken over. That's like saying we have a right to kidnap or even murder your children, your relatives, simply b/c if we don't do it, SOMEONE ELSE would have. So the HK was not for grabs that if the US didn't take over, someone else would have. Remember, you forget that the HK was a THRIVING independent state & b/c of that, a select group became greedy in 1887.
@karebear0410 Actually it's way more complicated than u wanting it to be simple. Although imperialism was alive & well, remember, the HK had MANY treaties w/ other nations, they were part of the Family of Nations, forerunner to the current UN, plus if we look at other countries such as England, Japan, even Russia, at least w/ England after WW2, they relinquished many of their territories & Japan & Russia never kept hold on territories away from their own. So no, they wouldn't have taken over.
@karebear0410 AGREED and if the U.S. pulled out of hawaii & withdraw it's protection, withdraw all federal funds, withdraw U.S. corps, withdraw U.S. tourism.
.
It's just silliness. It's like the same idealic nonsense that is marketed to youth around the world whether it's muslim jihadist, chinese gangs in china, black maurading killer squads in africa or nazi youth. AND THEY THINK THEY WILL BE THE ROYALTY WHEN THE NEW WORLD COMES. KILL HAOLIES & I WILL RULE. hahahahaha
@karebear0410 None of us can know that for sure. I do not mean any disrespect, but you are playing the same tune as allot of people lately. If you are true Hawaiian, shame on you. If you are not, then I can understand your point of view.
@curatrix2008 Whoa...that sounds like me what I would say. Are you learning to speak like me? B/c I've seen you only return harsh & racists responses here. So we can mold a person, it is true. Well, I'm glad I'm rubbing off at least to put you on our level where you can at least articulate yourself a bit more even if you have something against kanaka oiwi. At least you can be civil about it, so I have to commend you on that. Very good!
@karebear0410 Hawai'i would have been prosperous on it's own. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't 'Iolani Palace have electricity before the white house?
@bikinivette Seriously, I doubt the chinese, portuguese or germany would have been so astonished by the lightbulb as to not dare to take over a hawaii that had no strong protectorate. In fact, as soon as it was completed, every counrty with a diplomatic presence in hawaii acknowedged the new government within 48 hours. All the countries of the world were ready to have a hawaii that was strong, reasonable and diplomatically advanced.
@curatrix2008 Of course not, now you really are reaching for anything just to JUSTIFY THE OVERTHROW. China has not taken over any other country. Portugal's empirical days had ended a long time before the overthrow, and Germany never reached passed outside of Europe. You're justifying the overthrow as if the independent state of the Hawaiian Kingdom had to have been taken by your God given right simply b/c people are White. That's true racism! I know your try to hide it, but come on.
@curatrix2008 I can't hold anything against you if you're racist, it's nothing to me & unfortunately for you, I'm so accustomed to it, it really doesn't phase me a bit. Simply b/c today in the corporate world, in the educated field & in the legal field, there are those such as yourself who feels intimidated by my actions. But I don't do these things to be egotistical which is THEIR agenda, & yours obviously. But to say things just to make yourself feel the victor, it's so immature.
@bikinivette Karebare is implying that the Iolani Palace made the govt. go bankrupt. In other words, KAREBARE is justifying why the ILLEGAL 1887 Constitution was justified b/c THOSE GREEDY people didn't want their economy to collapse due to the King's spending. If Obama were to go crazy like that, they may try to impeach him, NOT hold a gun at his head & force him to change the constitution so that the CORPORATIONS could benefit. You get the point, Karebare doesn't.
@curatrix2008 You must've not read all what I wrote or you didn't comprehend it, but let me break down into terms much easier for you to comprehend. 1) No minister-counter signed per Art 42 of the constitution, 2) was under duress at time of signature, 3) not her legal name, & 4) the ROH didn't gain legal authority fr the Queen. Remember the ROH didn't have the people behind them & it was created as a means to away Cleveland going out.
@curatrix2008 I understand you believe that one person's signature as LEGAL standing but there's a lot more than you could comprehend, at least not for ordinary people like yourself to understand the legal ramifications.
@karebear0410 Incase you haven't noticed or heard, the U.S. has plans to stop Hawaiians from living like Hawaiians hundreds of years ago. Please look into that because that is exactly what is happening.
@bikinivette hahaha 'stop hawaiians from living like hawaiians hundreds of years ago" . . . well that is good for children that will not have to have sex with other family members. . . and I think that's good news for baby women that might be tossed into volcanos. I have yet to see any hawaiians willing to give up private property, individual rights to property and open and free speech over to a few royals.
@curatrix2008 I have come to the conclusion that you are only here to insult people rather than have a respectful and intelligent debate. I do not make my page private because I am not afraid to let people know who I am, yet it seems you are afraid. It is pointless to have any further discussion with you.
@Hawnguy100 That's something nearly ALL Americans will not understand, is how the US breaks its own laws. On top of that, it was even a topic during Congressional meetings when Senator Bacon sarcastically remarked seeing that it was impossible to make this treaty in the manner pointed out by the US CONSTITUTION, attempted then to nullify the provision in the Constitution by putting that treaty in a form of a statute. This he argued during the Newlands Resolution debate.
@karebear0410 , Okay, so he did his research. GREAT! Now he can make a movie of the struggle for a free Hawai'i or how about a film on how the U.S. Government lied about giving Hawai'i back . That would make for a good film wouldn't you think?
@bikinivette she signed Hawaii away then Oops! She wanted to it back & begged & whined around & Cleveland planned to save her akole. Then she opened her piehole & stated to the world when she was back in power she was gonna start chopping heads off. She refused to retract that and as it was a little to 'barbaric' for international pallate. She became a laughing stock & no one could support her. So, no DO-OVER. She tapped out & that was final.
@karebear0410 That is wonderfu, I was not attacking her as a person, l but native Hawaiians are not Asian looking. They are a very dark skinned people. Look all the former Hawaiian royals.
@curatrix2008 Half Scottish / Hawaiian, The Queen was married to an American from the prestigous Boston Dominis Family, there were many instances of Hawaiian Royalty marrying non Hawaiians.
@jvarela965 The royals embraced haolies, If you look at the pictures of the royals of that period, they were dressed in, lived in and embraced all things haoli. This fact is uniformily omitted by hawaiians who think playing the VICTIM would entitled them to be given Hawaii. until they admit royals embraced and promoted haolies, their history remains myopic and a lie.
Protesting and demanding the truth, do you include the Royals welcomed haolis into their beds, their linnage, their power. Royals embraced haoli culture, haoli education, haoli dress, haoli society and all their royal buildings were in the haoli style. You stand there protesting and forgetting you had no right to protest under Kings & Queens.
Whole movie is a mess. The Princess is played by an Asian looking actress when they could have hired a local talent. I believe the Queen first insisted that Dole, and Thurston and the other plotters were to be hanged but later Blount persuaded her to just deport them as her enemies in the U.S. Congress were trying to depict her as an undemocratic monarch.
I am Hawaiian and thought that the actress Q'orianka Kilcher did a great job. She meant no disrepect and Ka'iulani was portrayed as an intelligent, beautiful women. She did all she could for us in the time she was given and the filmmakers captured it as best they could.
Now this is my final word on the land. You were not left alii lands and organizations to build your own kingdoms but to build up each other. Educate yourselves, become something, and do more than march, hula and bitch!
When the monarchs did not fight back or have us fight then it was because they probably knew as Americanized hawaiians our chance to rebuild would increase because we would now have the rights to regain what we lost from those who took it in the first place!
Instead of creating a society of your own where obviously you will be able to thrive over the next hawaiian.... why not stand up to the one's you claimed took your land.
Here's why because like the hawaiians I know and am related to, its easier to side line a government and complain than to get up there and make the change your self. Next to those you complain about.
For every offense against our people I hear one same old song, "they took our land". Its true, they did take the land.
I grew up in the sovereignty struggle era. I've heard every speil of why we need to reform to a hawaiian kingdom. And I find that in a sense disrespectful.
Despite the wronfulness of our annexation, when we march around griping about a past we did not live in and not strive to lead in the world we live in or improve our communities we indirectly spit in our monarchy's face and jest "I think I could've done better"
Well, guess what hawaiians I have yet to see you do better.
I'm a Haole, but Hawaiian at heart. I love the culture and the people. If they're going to make a movie based on history, it should be as accurate as possible. Otherwise, people will have the wrong facts about what really happened. You're effectively changing history. But I've never seen a Hollywood movie based on history that was totally accurate. It just doesn't happen. They always change some things to make the movie more dramatic. It's not right, but that's Hollywood.
I believe that historic movies should be made as accurate as possible. I'm not Hawaiian, i'm African American, but i've had the privilege of calling it my home from ages 2-16 and when i talk to people here on the mainland about Hawaii, it amazes me how many don't know that Hawaii was stolen. Now if people don't know something that is so common knowledge, u have to make movies like this accurate or you'll have idiots believing all the wrong things. C'mon people, don't be afraid of the truth lol
you haole's dont understand that its not right to have wrong information in a HAWAIIAN movie. im hawaiian, i feel outraged that they would even think about having kaiulani, our princess, as the bad person, as if she wanted the U.S to have us annexed and have sanford b. dole as the "hero" its not right, they HAVE to change the movie. especially if it is a hawaiian movie. we take our hawaiian history very very seriously. dont make a different part in the movie when it never even happened.
@bryshaleigh "How about you leave OUR stories and OUR histories to us" How about one of ya with a nut dare to tell the truth. The queen signed it over.
my belief is simply this. hawaii should be it's own country, it's own kingdom, ruled by hawaiians. it's unfortunate that someone who doesn't know about our culture has to make a film like this. how about a film called "barbarian country takes over hawaii" that would be a "true" film.
@bikinivette and maybe you could be one of the royals ahahahaha. look the hawaiian royals embraced haolis, married them empowered them, dressed like them, were educated like them, built royal buildings like them. and the rest of the hawaiians were merely owned, controlled and could be killed by the royals.
@curatrix2008 Only a traitor would give away Hawai'i no matter what they embraced. Queen Liliuokalani was NOT a traitor and she was basically forced out by armed marines. What other choice did she have?
You've got hawns posting they will fight to the death for Sovereignty. Are they lying. I think many aren't. You are ignoring when push came to shove, (if you accept she REALLY was threatened with death) your Queen chose her own preservation over Hawaii. She tapped out. When do hawns ever accept, C'MON I didn't REALLY MEAN TO TAP OUT. LET ME DO IT AGAIN. C'MON. IT HURT I THOUGHT I MIGHT DIE. GIVE ME A DO-OVER I WON'T TAP OUT THIS TIME.
@curatrix2008 If I accept she was REALLY threatened with death? Yes I do and it is fact. The Queen chose the preservation of Hawai'i, so don't make it seem as if she was a selfish person only looking out for herself. You are just trying to push buttons on that matter and you should have more respect. I didn't disrespect you, family, or ancestors. Now back to the point. The Queen was lied to by the U.S. and the U.S contniues to lie about future plans for Hawai'i. That's a fact as well.
@curatrix2008 It wasn't that she signed it over, please READ all of my documentation. YOu're avoiding to counter-argue my points b/c you know very well that these facts says other wise instead you play the "hey, jump on my band wagon" in order to dissuade others from the truth. YES, the US took advantage of the ROH's situation ONLY b/c Capt. Mayhem & Schofield had their testimony in front of Congress. Had nothing to do w/ the Queen's so-called abdication.
@curatrix2008 Also, if you're so adamant about this so called "Signature" which you profess, why aren't you telling everyone else why the US Senate couldn't ratify the Treaty of Annexation submitted by the ROH after the PEOPLE & the Queen filed protests w/ the US State Dept? That's b/c the US KNEW that the Queen was the legal head of state, not the ROH. Remember, they only sought recognition fr other states to pretend they're legit, but they were self-appointed, not de jure nor de facto.
@curatrix2008 But by all means, please expound a bit more if you could as to why the signature of abdication was valid but the US Senate didn't ratify the treaty fr the ROH.
@mamoahina Sure. Right after you explain why Killer King Kamehameha lying to his rival, knocking him in his head and stealing his power and land was legitimate.
@curatrix2008 What does Kamehameha has to do w/ the illegal ROH? Trying 2 pull everything you could possibly think of to justify the overthrow. Kamehameha's UNIFICATION has nothing to do w/ this. W/ Kamehameha's reign he: 1) ended all wars, 2) erected a strong, central govt, 3) checked oppression of lesser chiefs, 4) appointed officers based on merit rather than rank, 5) imposed laws & made them more uniformed, 6) rigidly enforced laws & 7) brought condition of comparitve peace & security
@curatrix2008 and where did you get the idea that Kamehameha lied to his rival? Who are you referring to? And you obviously aren't aware of the constant wars that was a common occurance everytime a paramount chief died. There was always a redistribution of land, something you SHOULD be familiar w/ since it happens in Europe as well. But Kamehameha brought so much change at the right time. He picked at Vancouver's brain regarding British governance also advice from Young & Davis.
@curatrix2008 Vancouver's 3 trips allowed him to become good friends w/ Kamehameha & Vancouver wrote in his journals abt how Davis & Young had been materially instrumental in causing the honest, civil & attentive behaviour lately experience by all visitors fr the inhabitants of this island. On a natl level, he incorporated England's Prime Ministership, created governorship too, had a council of high chiefs & of course his trusted foreign advisors. His leadership was, like w/ Europe, progressive
@curatrix2008 I'm going to guess that you'll try to yet again, stray from the real subject, avoid my answers everytime I ask you to produce facts & you bring up something else ridiculous in order to paint this image that we're idiot, yet look at what you're doing to yourself. Seriously, although I laugh at the comments I get via private email abt your comments to everyone here, it really is pathetic.
@curatrix2008 Correct, the real topic is the legitimacy of the takeover, but you seem to be pulling Kamehameha into this & every, other thing. All of a sudden you dragged the abdication of the Queen when the overthrow happened before. What am I missing here, are you with me on the same page? Or did I say things to actually confuse you a bit?
@curatrix2008 Whoa, hold on, are you getting upset? Look, I didn't mean to but I believe as well as I'm sure you do, that this constant bantering is getting nowhere. Let's stick to the real subject, substantiate our arguments w/ facts rather than use PERSONAL prejudices & experiences in responses, okay? But let's not fool anyone here & stop playing the victim mentality by turning HAOLES into the bad guy. What these people did was wrong, people justifying their actions should be educated.
@mamoahina lol IT'S JUST FUNNY it's all evil when whites do the exact same thing kanakas do. You live with the crimes of the kanaka cause it suits ya. Haolies did no differently. GET OVER IT
@curatrix2008 no, no, no...sorry, my bad, I didn't mean to make HAOLES the bad guys. Yes, those Haoles were bad. But it's worse when people such as yourself try to defend those people as the innocent ones. Where is the justice there? Or are you really exhibiting your true prejudice? Bringing in Kamehameha conquering other chiefs doesn't justify the means, which is why I mentioned Kalanikupule, Keouakuahuula & Kaeo, not to mention Kiwalao, Kahekili & before that Kalaniopuu & Alapainui too.
@mamoahina yes or evil people like you that say kanakas stealing land, stealing power and murdering is OK if kanakas do it and defend it. BUT, and hold others to a different standard. HYPOCRITE
@curatrix2008 Remember what I wrote to you about leaving personal prejudice out of this? Let's keep this civil, shall we? So when I say that, that means leave out "killer" King Kamehameha. If you feel that way, then you feel that way but using adjectives like that, I could do the same & wrote COWARD CURATRIX or SHORT TEMPERED CURATRIX, etc. But like I said, let's leave out prejudice shall we?
@curatrix2008 Wait, how can I fill this thread when everyone can see that there is more than just my name in here? YOu replied, so yes, that means you're filling the thread too. But YOUTUBE doesn't regulate who can or who can't fill a thread, that's why they allow comments or allow the user/poser to disable it if they want, but that has nothing to do w/ our discussion so try not to be detered by this which I can see you easily get distracted by.
@curatrix2008 My nasty comments w/ personal prejudice? I've had constant emails from more than one person about your prejudice comments under various videos & they complained to me saying they should report you but I tell them to just ignore you b/c you seem to be incoherent in ALL of your responses. Look at your responses, they're written in caps & usually one or two sentences being redundant which that alone says a lot about your level of education or that you can't articulate very well.
@curatrix2008 child molestor? Didn't I say to keep out personal prejudice out of this discussion? You did understand what I meant by that, right? I"m sorry if that's what you suffered but I assure you, I'm no molestor & if there really was someone that said that about me, which I suspect that you're just lashing out b/c you were molested, then that's fucked up but I hope you get help w/ that b/c that's a serious issue. I myself have gone overboard yelling & nearly attacking a child molestor.
@curatrix2008 I'm sure some people know about me b/c I've posted elsewhere about the same issues re the overthow, but on YT, you're the 1st person I've had the opportunity to mention the previous chiefs, which I feel is important. Not unless these people you claim to know me knew me fr another forum?
@curatrix2008 unfortunately...the US laws dictates that justice needs to be done in a certain way, so...that child molestor I almost had my hands on got to walk free...for a little bit until someone else took justice into their hands, so...again, I apologize for your own personal experience.
@mamoahina oh now ya wanna live by u.s. law HAHAHAHA WELL OK, IN THE FUTURE LET'S ALL DO THAT. RIGHT NOW THOUGH, BY WHAT YOU SAID. THE TAKEOVERS ARE IN THE PAST
@curatrix2008 No, I don't want to live by US law, I have to abide by US laws if I'm in the US. So me allowing the US laws to handle child molestors as dictated by their laws is just that. But as far as the takeovers, they are in the past, yes...i'm glad we're on the same page now. I guess I finally learned to come down to your level & write less complicated & more direct w/ you in order for you to understand, but yes, the takeovers are in the past as you said.
@curatrix2008 Kamehameha killed his rivals, but let me ask you this. Why aren't you talking about what his rival did? Shall I name who his rivals were since I know you can't? Explain to people here why Kalanikupule was killed & what he did. Same goes for Keouakuahuula. Let's see if you can really keep this on topic. My guess is you'll be immature in your response, but hey, it's a shot.
@curatrix2008 Why am I evil? I"m not the one who's portraying kanakas as idiotic & confusing people on purpose w/ half truths & not answering like a mature adult to responses. Because that's all I'm asking, like in any NORMAL situation, but you're turning me into the evil one, why exactly, b/c I can provide facts & clarify truths? Or is it that your ego really is hurt & you're looking at anything to throw at me?
@curatrix2008 No, that's YOUR interpretation. Remember CURATRIX, you're trying to justify the US takeover as it being justified & legal & now telling me to get over it b/c you're admitting that it was wrong, but you do that by bring up killings by Kamehameha but as I pointed out what type of change Kamehameha made in his unification just as it happened elsewhere, you are saying that its hypocritical when I pointed out how it's not the same & supposedly Haoles come off as superior but theyre not
@curatrix2008 it's people such as yourself who paint this romanticize fanatsy about HI of a paradisic, blissful, serene place loaded w/ passive natives who would be at your beckon call. Then you come onto YOUTUBE to paint a diff. image when you realize we're like ordinary people & can think intelligently, even more so than yourself.
@curatrix2008 Where did i say that Kanakas have the right to lie, murder & steal? You constantly turn things around. Here I'm thinking you're just an American but now I'm wondering, is English your 1st lang.? Maybe my writing is too advanced for you, since I know I get too wordy & not straight to the point at times...my apologies. If that's the case, I can TRY to just be brief & to the point b/c you seem to be all over the place in ur responses & are hung up on lie, murder & steal.
@curatrix2008 I don't know how many times you have to write that I defend the killers. Before that, you kept on writing to me & everyone else about the abdication, before that, i can't remember, but he point is, you find something unrelated & stick to it to avoid the facts. How old are you really? Seem like you have a comprehension problem & I'd like to know rather than waste my time.
@curatrix2008 That's a silly question curatrix, forced takeovers aren't acceptable. but do you see what I'm saying about the past? You use Kamehameha as a means to justify the USA's wrong doings. But if we look at who Kamehameha took over, his captors did the same thing to others. I mentioned Kalanikupule & his father & his uncle & the death of Kahahana. If you need references to understand that part of history, shoot me a pvt mgs I'll give you good references on that, plus it's in English
@curatrix2008 Well, the takeovers of the past should be understood, not misunderstod, which is why I had to explain to you what that was all about. Again, not that these things should be forgotten, b/c I still educate a lot of people, foreigners esp. (Non-AMericans) about the history of Hawaii, good & bad, everything so they have a better understanding.
@curatrix2008 Correct, & if you feel the need to reassure yourself that this is in the past, then I'll agree w/ you on this. That what was done was illegal.
@mamoahina so since it's in the past, it will be left in the past and no apologies or corrections for the U.S. takeover is necessary - and that no apologies or corrections for the Killer-K takeover is nessecessary
@curatrix2008 The takeover yes, it is in the past. The righting the wrong, it's up to the people. Or was that your big beef all along, thinking that people have no right and only YOU could decide the fate of Hawaiians? If so, then I think you're threading on dangerous waters. People such as yourself have this innate belief that only YOU can decide what's best for Hawaiians but you should really let that go. I don't see why it would matter to you anyway, what would you have to lose?
@curatrix2008 So you think it would be fair if Americans voted to see if Iraq could be a part of the US? B/c as i've said it before here (but maybe not to you) that u cant put 2 vote an issue that was wronged by having people who benefited from stealing of the land. Doesn't that make sense?
@curatrix2008 And I thought you got over what Kamehameha did? Or are you still bitter about losing or looking like a fool b/c please, as I said, I didn't mean to do that, I just wanted people to understand the truth & we can't have people twisitng the truth but in the end I'm not the one making you look like the enemy or an idiot...remember that.
@curatrix2008 No, no, I didn't mean for you to be confused & I know you feel it's dumb simply b/c you don't understand it & I can tell by you writing all caps how upset you are, but this isn't about your ego, or your personal bad experiences or your molestation past. I can't explain anymore if you can't comprehend an intelligent ADULT conversation or discussion abt Kamehameha's unification, the chiefs he conquered & those chiefs whom they've killed vs. USA"s illegal overthrow. And I won't.
@curatrix2008 But this isn't special ED here. In netspeak, when writing in caps, that indicates shouting/yelling, just FYI. But I know you already knew that I'm not a retard if you're implying that, b/c that, in netspeak, is ad hominem attacks which again, validates people contacting me abt ur immaturity & personal attacks. But now we can see why, you were molested, u accuse others of being molestors, that's very messed up. & as others said, u obviously are challenged...intellectually.
@curatrix2008 What signs? If that were true, people I work wtih would have issue w/ that & I wouldn't be in the position I am today nor as successful as I am today if that were true. Again, you seriously need to relinquish this bitter feeling & any bad experience & keep this on topic rather than drag your personal vendetta into this. You're only entertaining yourself & making yourself look like a fool, it really is pathetic.
@curatrix2008 no actually I'm not at work right now. believe me, if I were, I wouldn't have time to reply until after I get off from work, so no, you are wrong at that. Try again if you want, but remember, I'm not the one who looks like the idiot here.
@curatrix2008 Don't you think that we all know what you're doing here? You feel that this is all about you and to satisfy your ego, you make ad hominem attacks but every time you come up with something ridiculous, I immediately & efficiently can counter-argue your ridiculous statements & support it w/ facts so you attempt to confuse people by coming back w/ 1 or 2 sentences & most of the time if it's not just an immature remark, it's unfounded such as telling me not to use my work comp.
@curatrix2008 No, not the voices, when I say "we" I meant the people who had sent me messages. Do you remember that when I mentioned that? Or are you confused again?
@curatrix2008 CURATRIX...I know you're angry, bitter, hurt & your ego is busted, but that's no reason to make false & SERIOUS accusations esp. regarding MOLESTATION b/c to me, that's not a laughing matter at all. It's one of those tabu subjects that you never accuse or make fun of someone & you definitely crossed the line there. You can be prejudice & say you hate me & kanakas but to make fun of molested people is a big "no no" in my book. That's very uncalled for & you know it!
@curatrix2008 YOu come here personally attacking me, you attack other Hawaiians, and now b/c you cannot reply in a civil manner, you confuse the topic. I hate to be blunt w/ you but I'll just come out & say it. Please, by all means, just get some balls, grow up, be a real man for once! Argue what you believe is true & support it w/ facts, don't make personal attacks on everyone here b/c that's grounds for dismissal according to YT policies & making molestation accuastions is a serious mtr.
@curatrix2008 I didn't come here attacking anyone at all. You are getting personal bring up molestation accuastions, something very serious, you picked on other kanakas here & myself trying to pick & prod my personal life mentioning my work. And if anyone is screaming like a bitch, it wasn't me & you know it. You're just hurt & angry, just as that other Hawn person verified & he had a discussion w/ that 15yr old & some other person who verified your behavior in other channels.
@curatrix2008 You've been doing nothing but personal attacks b/c that is YOUR way of venting, YOUR way of screaming like this bitch you claim I am doing, when I've been doing nothing but revalidating the facts which you twisted & you post elsewhere or bring up something related & twist my words just as you twist the truth AND/OR you seriously cannot comprehend English very well. Now when I tell you to "man up", you scream like a bitch & accuse me of it.
@curatrix2008 You write the same thing over & over again for 24 hrs. or so like you did w/ abdication then when after the truth has been beaten down into the people you've been trying to persuade, you pick something else to write about. You get upset b/c I say to be mature, man up, & that Hawn guy mentioned how I made you feel like an idiot which wasn't my intention actually, but now you retaliate by making a serious accusation about molestation & fabricate that others said that abt me?
@curatrix2008 Wait, are you saying I actually said/wrote that it's okay when Kanakas lie? I don't recall that at all but if I did write that, please show it to me. But again, for the millionth time, to reiterate, you are taking it way out of proportion & I know that your English level is barely basic, I was pointing out that Kamehameha did not kill innocents, but rather those people also killed & them before that too.
@curatrix2008 But since you're very redundant abt the killings & name callings of Kamehameha in order to make yourself feel superior even though you definitely can't be compared to a chief who was skilled in battle & governance, why are you always avoiding my questions?
DEFENDING & JUSTIFYING - KILLER KING: What do you mean it's not the same that they had a diff. king? If Kamehameha didn't do what he did at the advice of his council of chiefs whose people were unhappy & were oppressed, oppression probably would've continued, but still doesn't tie to the US illegally taking over even though they knew well how to handle themselves in a civil manner. Kalanikupule & his father Kahekili had Kahahana killed, & in the end, Kamehameha's forces killed Kalanikupule.
@curatrix2008 But you contend that somehow, an apology to myself (a descendant of Keawemauhili through my mother whose mother was the daughter of Kaauamo, the daughter of Keawemauhili who was the son of Keawemauhili who was the granddaughter of the chief Keawemauhili killed by his nephew Keouakuahuula, done by myself whose paternal grandfather was the great-grandson of D.N., a descendant of Kamehameha on both sides of his family. How is that an adjustment & validates the illegal overthrow?
@curatrix2008 You've done nothing but throw insults at other people, at Hawaiians, then you steer the conversations away from the topic & when I substantiate your half truths w/ clarification, you bail & post elsewhere or pick on 15yr olds or repeat what others say here to disconcert the real issues. So tell me again how I look dumb?
@mamoahina YOU WANT TO DEFEND AND EXCUSE MURDER, LYING STEALING IF YOUR KILLER KING DOES IT............ BUT YA GET ALL INDIGNANT SAYING HAOLIES DID THE SAME THING. . .
@curatrix2008 I didn't say the haoles did the same thing, you're the one who is saying that. I'm saying that you cannot justify one past w/ another. You're talking about the unfication of Kamehameha in 1790 - 1810 w/ the so called CIVILIZED nation state of the USA taking over another independent state. 2 different situations.
@curatrix2008 Why would I want to start a campaign to apologize to the descendants of whose ancestors were killed? That's like apologizing to myself & everyone else apologizing to themselves. We're all products of both the defeated & those who defeated. but everyone knows that. That still doesn't change the fact that what the US did was wrong & you trying to thwart this whole conversation to go in one direction & yet another & constantly misread everything is not getting YOU anywhere.
@mamoahina IT'S NOT THE SAME. . . THEY HAD A DIFFERENT KING. AND IF KILLER-K hadn't murdered him. it might have all been different. SO APOLOGIZE YOU DESCENDANT OF A LYING MURDERING THIEF.
@curatrix2008 not unless you can explain other wise why you're so prejudice against kanakas & can admit that no local has actually picked on you or discriminated against you? I'm guessing no, but there's usually a reason why people like yourself are singled out vs the foreigners who've assimilated & intermarried w/ locals.
@curatrix2008 What do you mean it's not the same that they had a diff. king? If Kamehameha didn't do what he did at the advice of his council of chiefs whose people were unhappy & were oppressed, oppression probably would've continued, but still doesn't tie to the US illegally taking over even though they knew well how to handle themselves in a civil manner. Kalanikupule & his father Kahekili had Kahahana killed, & in the end, Kamehameha's forces killed Kalanikupule.
@curatrix2008 Kamehameha saw himself as a British subject at that time so he was justifying the death of Capt. Brown & his crew since it was Kalanikupule who caused their deaths.
Kanaka Maolis [LEARN YOUR LANGUAGE] NA KANAKA MAOLI....THE PRINCESS' NAME IS KA-IU-LANI....NOT KAI-U-LANI....YOU ARE REALLY BOGUS.
electricslipper 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am Native Hawaiian of a chiefly line, but errors occurred in the Kalakaua dyanasty that sealed the Kingdom's fate. Both Kalakaua and Liliu were extravogant in their spending and they were incompetent as rulers. Strong willed, stubborn and impulsive. This lead to concerns by the Hawaiian community. Her attempt to initiate a revised constitution that would give her more power was of concern, since the dynasty was already impetuous. Liliu's signing of abdication concluded the revolution. Pau
MolokaiAlika 1 year ago
@MolokaiAlika if you're kanaka of a chiefly line, why are you spewing inaccuracies? And you're not of a Molokai line that's for sure. You use Kalakaua's spending & Liliu's (not sure where you got that idea from) as a means to justify the 1887 imposition while avoiding my counter-arguments. Liliu was putting back the 1864C, NOT giving herself more power. The 1887C took away the Executive branch to make decision that was ALREADY counter-signed by cabinet members & ratified by the legislature.
mamoahina 1 year ago
Well, if Queen Emma would have won the election and not Kalakaua, perhaps history would have played out totally differently. The Kalakaua dynasty was an embarassment to na kanaka maoli. Lets not white wash the facts with revisionism. These individuals in the Kalakaua dynasty including Kaiulani were not "TOA" as the Kamehameha line, kaumaha e.
MolokaiAlika 1 year ago
@MolokaiAlika There you go w/ your Emma theory but can't state how things would turn out based on whatever you believe it to be mr. "I come from a chiefly line" but can't state that line.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@Hawnguy100. That's right. The Ku'e petitions did say "We, the undersign urnestly PROTEST of annexation against any form or shaped" We did not wanted to become part of the U.S. But the U.S. congress in the end ingnored it! Even the movie mentioned that.
The person who payed Queen Liliuokalani said, "The Kanaka signed a petition, which was ingnored!" That part was true.
Yes in the end, it sounds like, the Hawaiians welcomed America. Even the Princess said that. But that we know is a lie!
DeltaEagle7700 1 year ago
@DeltaEagle7700 There were irregularities in the petition in that there were duplication of signatures, and parents signed for their children even those whoe were still infants. There were other irregularities that held the petition as questionable, e.g., changing ages as afterthoughts.
MolokaiAlika 1 year ago
Comment removed
DeltaEagle7700 1 year ago
@DeltaEagle7700 Questionable... which makes them below the standard of reasonable accuracy. “Tho’ for a moment it [the overthrow] cost
me a pang of pain for my people it was only momentary,
for the present has a hope for the future of my
people.”
—Former Queen Lili‘uokalani in her diary on Sunday,
September 2, 1900.
MolokaiAlika 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MolokaiAlika. So what is your point?
DeltaEagle7700 1 year ago
@MolokaiAlika I heard of these ridiculous statements of how people try to invalidate the petition. But the petitions were nothing more, like any other petition verification of what the people thought. Remember the petition was only against the US Annexation, something that was ILLEGAL! That's what you're failing to acknowledge. You're talking about children signing when in reality at that time not even WOMEN were voting.
mamoahina 1 year ago
I agree with that! I 100% agree with that! The first time I watched this movie, the first scenes were agreeable. However the last scene was not to me. Because as what you said, that sound kinda true. I said to myself, "Wait a minute! So Hawaii annexation to the United States was a GOOD thing?!" Because it sounds like the Hawaiians wanted to become Americans.
But we all know thats a lie!
DeltaEagle7700 1 year ago
you are so right braddah...if they cannot tell the right story..leave it alone and dont do it at all...straight up!!
sheontee 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MAKE UP YOUR MIND.
1. ALL TAKEOVERS IN THE PAST STAND?
(or just the ones you like)
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@karebear0410 I can't find why you're commenting about the bankruptcy part but u replied to bikinivette, but I wanted to add (w/o knowing why you said that), the reason for the 1887 constitution was b/c Thurston & others felt that the King was spending too laviously & were afraid that their thriving economy would collapse, esp. w/ the recent tariffs put on by the US for THEIR sugar. Basically now they had to pay which meant money taken from their profits, so they revolted.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@karebear0410 Even when Robert Lous Stevenson visited Honolulu he remarked at how it looked like a mini-SF. The palace had telephone service before the White House did, there were trolly cars in the streets of Honolulu, there were Hawn. embassies in diff. countries & other embassies in Honolulu, they had a thriving economy, they had citizenship, denizens, the whole works.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@karebear0410 But remember, let's not add any premature racism here BELIEVING that the HK simply had to be taken over. That's like saying we have a right to kidnap or even murder your children, your relatives, simply b/c if we don't do it, SOMEONE ELSE would have. So the HK was not for grabs that if the US didn't take over, someone else would have. Remember, you forget that the HK was a THRIVING independent state & b/c of that, a select group became greedy in 1887.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@karebear0410 Actually it's way more complicated than u wanting it to be simple. Although imperialism was alive & well, remember, the HK had MANY treaties w/ other nations, they were part of the Family of Nations, forerunner to the current UN, plus if we look at other countries such as England, Japan, even Russia, at least w/ England after WW2, they relinquished many of their territories & Japan & Russia never kept hold on territories away from their own. So no, they wouldn't have taken over.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@karebear0410 AGREED and if the U.S. pulled out of hawaii & withdraw it's protection, withdraw all federal funds, withdraw U.S. corps, withdraw U.S. tourism.
.
It's just silliness. It's like the same idealic nonsense that is marketed to youth around the world whether it's muslim jihadist, chinese gangs in china, black maurading killer squads in africa or nazi youth. AND THEY THINK THEY WILL BE THE ROYALTY WHEN THE NEW WORLD COMES. KILL HAOLIES & I WILL RULE. hahahahaha
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@karebear0410 None of us can know that for sure. I do not mean any disrespect, but you are playing the same tune as allot of people lately. If you are true Hawaiian, shame on you. If you are not, then I can understand your point of view.
bikinivette 1 year ago
@Hawnguy100 Thank you!
bikinivette 1 year ago
@Hawnguy100 your inability to put together logical points is the reason your fellow hawns haven't chosen you to be a leader.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 Whoa...that sounds like me what I would say. Are you learning to speak like me? B/c I've seen you only return harsh & racists responses here. So we can mold a person, it is true. Well, I'm glad I'm rubbing off at least to put you on our level where you can at least articulate yourself a bit more even if you have something against kanaka oiwi. At least you can be civil about it, so I have to commend you on that. Very good!
mamoahina 1 year ago
@karebear0410 Hawai'i would have been prosperous on it's own. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't 'Iolani Palace have electricity before the white house?
bikinivette 1 year ago
@bikinivette Hawaii had no way to prevent other countries from taking it over.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@bikinivette Seriously, I doubt the chinese, portuguese or germany would have been so astonished by the lightbulb as to not dare to take over a hawaii that had no strong protectorate. In fact, as soon as it was completed, every counrty with a diplomatic presence in hawaii acknowedged the new government within 48 hours. All the countries of the world were ready to have a hawaii that was strong, reasonable and diplomatically advanced.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 Of course not, now you really are reaching for anything just to JUSTIFY THE OVERTHROW. China has not taken over any other country. Portugal's empirical days had ended a long time before the overthrow, and Germany never reached passed outside of Europe. You're justifying the overthrow as if the independent state of the Hawaiian Kingdom had to have been taken by your God given right simply b/c people are White. That's true racism! I know your try to hide it, but come on.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 I can't hold anything against you if you're racist, it's nothing to me & unfortunately for you, I'm so accustomed to it, it really doesn't phase me a bit. Simply b/c today in the corporate world, in the educated field & in the legal field, there are those such as yourself who feels intimidated by my actions. But I don't do these things to be egotistical which is THEIR agenda, & yours obviously. But to say things just to make yourself feel the victor, it's so immature.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@bikinivette Karebare is implying that the Iolani Palace made the govt. go bankrupt. In other words, KAREBARE is justifying why the ILLEGAL 1887 Constitution was justified b/c THOSE GREEDY people didn't want their economy to collapse due to the King's spending. If Obama were to go crazy like that, they may try to impeach him, NOT hold a gun at his head & force him to change the constitution so that the CORPORATIONS could benefit. You get the point, Karebare doesn't.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina SHE SIGNED
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 You must've not read all what I wrote or you didn't comprehend it, but let me break down into terms much easier for you to comprehend. 1) No minister-counter signed per Art 42 of the constitution, 2) was under duress at time of signature, 3) not her legal name, & 4) the ROH didn't gain legal authority fr the Queen. Remember the ROH didn't have the people behind them & it was created as a means to away Cleveland going out.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 I understand you believe that one person's signature as LEGAL standing but there's a lot more than you could comprehend, at least not for ordinary people like yourself to understand the legal ramifications.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina SHE SIGNED
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@karebear0410 Incase you haven't noticed or heard, the U.S. has plans to stop Hawaiians from living like Hawaiians hundreds of years ago. Please look into that because that is exactly what is happening.
bikinivette 1 year ago
@bikinivette hahaha 'stop hawaiians from living like hawaiians hundreds of years ago" . . . well that is good for children that will not have to have sex with other family members. . . and I think that's good news for baby women that might be tossed into volcanos. I have yet to see any hawaiians willing to give up private property, individual rights to property and open and free speech over to a few royals.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 I have come to the conclusion that you are only here to insult people rather than have a respectful and intelligent debate. I do not make my page private because I am not afraid to let people know who I am, yet it seems you are afraid. It is pointless to have any further discussion with you.
bikinivette 1 year ago
@Hawnguy100 That's something nearly ALL Americans will not understand, is how the US breaks its own laws. On top of that, it was even a topic during Congressional meetings when Senator Bacon sarcastically remarked seeing that it was impossible to make this treaty in the manner pointed out by the US CONSTITUTION, attempted then to nullify the provision in the Constitution by putting that treaty in a form of a statute. This he argued during the Newlands Resolution debate.
mamoahina 1 year ago 12
@karebear0410 , Okay, so he did his research. GREAT! Now he can make a movie of the struggle for a free Hawai'i or how about a film on how the U.S. Government lied about giving Hawai'i back . That would make for a good film wouldn't you think?
bikinivette 1 year ago
@bikinivette she signed Hawaii away then Oops! She wanted to it back & begged & whined around & Cleveland planned to save her akole. Then she opened her piehole & stated to the world when she was back in power she was gonna start chopping heads off. She refused to retract that and as it was a little to 'barbaric' for international pallate. She became a laughing stock & no one could support her. So, no DO-OVER. She tapped out & that was final.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@karebear0410 That is wonderfu, I was not attacking her as a person, l but native Hawaiians are not Asian looking. They are a very dark skinned people. Look all the former Hawaiian royals.
jvarela965 1 year ago
@jvarela965 Your beloved Princess Kaiulani was scottish.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 Half Scottish / Hawaiian, The Queen was married to an American from the prestigous Boston Dominis Family, there were many instances of Hawaiian Royalty marrying non Hawaiians.
jvarela965 1 year ago
@jvarela965. . . Ka'iulani's Parents - Princess Miriam Likelike and Archibald Scott Cleghorn Queen Liliuokalani was not her mother.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@jvarela965. . . Ka'iulani's Parents - Princess Miriam Likelike and Archibald Scott Cleghorn Queen Liliuokalani was not her mother.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 Im aware of that, read what I wrote the Queen was married to an American John Dominis.
jvarela965 1 year ago
@jvarela965 The royals embraced haolies, If you look at the pictures of the royals of that period, they were dressed in, lived in and embraced all things haoli. This fact is uniformily omitted by hawaiians who think playing the VICTIM would entitled them to be given Hawaii. until they admit royals embraced and promoted haolies, their history remains myopic and a lie.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
Protesting and demanding the truth, do you include the Royals welcomed haolis into their beds, their linnage, their power. Royals embraced haoli culture, haoli education, haoli dress, haoli society and all their royal buildings were in the haoli style. You stand there protesting and forgetting you had no right to protest under Kings & Queens.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
Whole movie is a mess. The Princess is played by an Asian looking actress when they could have hired a local talent. I believe the Queen first insisted that Dole, and Thurston and the other plotters were to be hanged but later Blount persuaded her to just deport them as her enemies in the U.S. Congress were trying to depict her as an undemocratic monarch.
jvarela965 1 year ago
this movie needed a hawaiian director
YourSoDom 1 year ago
I am Hawaiian and thought that the actress Q'orianka Kilcher did a great job. She meant no disrepect and Ka'iulani was portrayed as an intelligent, beautiful women. She did all she could for us in the time she was given and the filmmakers captured it as best they could.
mahea2000 1 year ago
Now this is my final word on the land. You were not left alii lands and organizations to build your own kingdoms but to build up each other. Educate yourselves, become something, and do more than march, hula and bitch!
When the monarchs did not fight back or have us fight then it was because they probably knew as Americanized hawaiians our chance to rebuild would increase because we would now have the rights to regain what we lost from those who took it in the first place!
learn and grow
frdrwin4 2 years ago
Instead of creating a society of your own where obviously you will be able to thrive over the next hawaiian.... why not stand up to the one's you claimed took your land.
Here's why because like the hawaiians I know and am related to, its easier to side line a government and complain than to get up there and make the change your self. Next to those you complain about.
For every offense against our people I hear one same old song, "they took our land". Its true, they did take the land.
frdrwin4 2 years ago
I grew up in the sovereignty struggle era. I've heard every speil of why we need to reform to a hawaiian kingdom. And I find that in a sense disrespectful.
Despite the wronfulness of our annexation, when we march around griping about a past we did not live in and not strive to lead in the world we live in or improve our communities we indirectly spit in our monarchy's face and jest "I think I could've done better"
Well, guess what hawaiians I have yet to see you do better.
frdrwin4 2 years ago
This is so sick how can they do that to P. Ka'iulani???
She never gave Hawaii, to the US!!! Please do all you can do to STOP that sick flim!!!
E malama pono,
Franciscan Friars of Chicago
franciscanschicago 2 years ago
I'm a Haole, but Hawaiian at heart. I love the culture and the people. If they're going to make a movie based on history, it should be as accurate as possible. Otherwise, people will have the wrong facts about what really happened. You're effectively changing history. But I've never seen a Hollywood movie based on history that was totally accurate. It just doesn't happen. They always change some things to make the movie more dramatic. It's not right, but that's Hollywood.
hepgeoff 2 years ago 2
I agree Hollywood is never accurate. I still think this is a lot better than their last stint... remember Blood Orchid!
Besides the historical mess, I do love the portrayal of our monarch's as strong, intelligent, and wise people.
Sometimes to spare a masacre its best to just passively give in.
frdrwin4 2 years ago
I believe that historic movies should be made as accurate as possible. I'm not Hawaiian, i'm African American, but i've had the privilege of calling it my home from ages 2-16 and when i talk to people here on the mainland about Hawaii, it amazes me how many don't know that Hawaii was stolen. Now if people don't know something that is so common knowledge, u have to make movies like this accurate or you'll have idiots believing all the wrong things. C'mon people, don't be afraid of the truth lol
thephantom0 2 years ago
right on uncle, i like stand wit u guys at iolani palace too.
Kuuleimomimakamae 2 years ago
you haole's dont understand that its not right to have wrong information in a HAWAIIAN movie. im hawaiian, i feel outraged that they would even think about having kaiulani, our princess, as the bad person, as if she wanted the U.S to have us annexed and have sanford b. dole as the "hero" its not right, they HAVE to change the movie. especially if it is a hawaiian movie. we take our hawaiian history very very seriously. dont make a different part in the movie when it never even happened.
Kuuleimomimakamae 2 years ago
Why don't you stop protesting and start producing! If you don't like it, go make your own movie!
jazzysoranio 3 years ago
How about you leave OUR stories and OUR histories to us. Mess up your own history.
bryshaleigh 2 years ago
@bryshaleigh hahaha Can't stand the truth?
curatrix2008 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bryshaleigh "How about you leave OUR stories and OUR histories to us" How about one of ya with a nut dare to tell the truth. The queen signed it over.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
my belief is simply this. hawaii should be it's own country, it's own kingdom, ruled by hawaiians. it's unfortunate that someone who doesn't know about our culture has to make a film like this. how about a film called "barbarian country takes over hawaii" that would be a "true" film.
bikinivette 3 years ago 17
@bikinivette and maybe you could be one of the royals ahahahaha. look the hawaiian royals embraced haolis, married them empowered them, dressed like them, were educated like them, built royal buildings like them. and the rest of the hawaiians were merely owned, controlled and could be killed by the royals.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 Only a traitor would give away Hawai'i no matter what they embraced. Queen Liliuokalani was NOT a traitor and she was basically forced out by armed marines. What other choice did she have?
bikinivette 1 year ago
@bikinivette . . . she could have chosen to die.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@bikinivette . . . traitor? well, by their acts shall they be known.
. . . she's not a traitor cause you say so or because her actions say so?
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@bikinivette ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS!
.
You've got hawns posting they will fight to the death for Sovereignty. Are they lying. I think many aren't. You are ignoring when push came to shove, (if you accept she REALLY was threatened with death) your Queen chose her own preservation over Hawaii. She tapped out. When do hawns ever accept, C'MON I didn't REALLY MEAN TO TAP OUT. LET ME DO IT AGAIN. C'MON. IT HURT I THOUGHT I MIGHT DIE. GIVE ME A DO-OVER I WON'T TAP OUT THIS TIME.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 If I accept she was REALLY threatened with death? Yes I do and it is fact. The Queen chose the preservation of Hawai'i, so don't make it seem as if she was a selfish person only looking out for herself. You are just trying to push buttons on that matter and you should have more respect. I didn't disrespect you, family, or ancestors. Now back to the point. The Queen was lied to by the U.S. and the U.S contniues to lie about future plans for Hawai'i. That's a fact as well.
bikinivette 1 year ago
@bikinivette There could have been no take over as you call it if she hadn't signed hawaii over to the U.S.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 It wasn't that she signed it over, please READ all of my documentation. YOu're avoiding to counter-argue my points b/c you know very well that these facts says other wise instead you play the "hey, jump on my band wagon" in order to dissuade others from the truth. YES, the US took advantage of the ROH's situation ONLY b/c Capt. Mayhem & Schofield had their testimony in front of Congress. Had nothing to do w/ the Queen's so-called abdication.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 Also, if you're so adamant about this so called "Signature" which you profess, why aren't you telling everyone else why the US Senate couldn't ratify the Treaty of Annexation submitted by the ROH after the PEOPLE & the Queen filed protests w/ the US State Dept? That's b/c the US KNEW that the Queen was the legal head of state, not the ROH. Remember, they only sought recognition fr other states to pretend they're legit, but they were self-appointed, not de jure nor de facto.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 But by all means, please expound a bit more if you could as to why the signature of abdication was valid but the US Senate didn't ratify the treaty fr the ROH.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina Sure. Right after you explain why Killer King Kamehameha lying to his rival, knocking him in his head and stealing his power and land was legitimate.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 What does Kamehameha has to do w/ the illegal ROH? Trying 2 pull everything you could possibly think of to justify the overthrow. Kamehameha's UNIFICATION has nothing to do w/ this. W/ Kamehameha's reign he: 1) ended all wars, 2) erected a strong, central govt, 3) checked oppression of lesser chiefs, 4) appointed officers based on merit rather than rank, 5) imposed laws & made them more uniformed, 6) rigidly enforced laws & 7) brought condition of comparitve peace & security
mamoahina 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 and where did you get the idea that Kamehameha lied to his rival? Who are you referring to? And you obviously aren't aware of the constant wars that was a common occurance everytime a paramount chief died. There was always a redistribution of land, something you SHOULD be familiar w/ since it happens in Europe as well. But Kamehameha brought so much change at the right time. He picked at Vancouver's brain regarding British governance also advice from Young & Davis.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 Vancouver's 3 trips allowed him to become good friends w/ Kamehameha & Vancouver wrote in his journals abt how Davis & Young had been materially instrumental in causing the honest, civil & attentive behaviour lately experience by all visitors fr the inhabitants of this island. On a natl level, he incorporated England's Prime Ministership, created governorship too, had a council of high chiefs & of course his trusted foreign advisors. His leadership was, like w/ Europe, progressive
mamoahina 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 I'm going to guess that you'll try to yet again, stray from the real subject, avoid my answers everytime I ask you to produce facts & you bring up something else ridiculous in order to paint this image that we're idiot, yet look at what you're doing to yourself. Seriously, although I laugh at the comments I get via private email abt your comments to everyone here, it really is pathetic.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina the real topic the legitimacy of the U.S. takeover. correct?
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 Correct, the real topic is the legitimacy of the takeover, but you seem to be pulling Kamehameha into this & every, other thing. All of a sudden you dragged the abdication of the Queen when the overthrow happened before. What am I missing here, are you with me on the same page? Or did I say things to actually confuse you a bit?
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina I GOT IT. TAKEOVERS LEGIT OR NOT ARE OK IF KANAKA DO IT.
TAKEOVERS LEGIT OR NOT AND - NEVER OK - IF HAOLIES DO IT.
.
.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 Whoa, hold on, are you getting upset? Look, I didn't mean to but I believe as well as I'm sure you do, that this constant bantering is getting nowhere. Let's stick to the real subject, substantiate our arguments w/ facts rather than use PERSONAL prejudices & experiences in responses, okay? But let's not fool anyone here & stop playing the victim mentality by turning HAOLES into the bad guy. What these people did was wrong, people justifying their actions should be educated.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina lol IT'S JUST FUNNY it's all evil when whites do the exact same thing kanakas do. You live with the crimes of the kanaka cause it suits ya. Haolies did no differently. GET OVER IT
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 no, no, no...sorry, my bad, I didn't mean to make HAOLES the bad guys. Yes, those Haoles were bad. But it's worse when people such as yourself try to defend those people as the innocent ones. Where is the justice there? Or are you really exhibiting your true prejudice? Bringing in Kamehameha conquering other chiefs doesn't justify the means, which is why I mentioned Kalanikupule, Keouakuahuula & Kaeo, not to mention Kiwalao, Kahekili & before that Kalaniopuu & Alapainui too.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina yes or evil people like you that say kanakas stealing land, stealing power and murdering is OK if kanakas do it and defend it. BUT, and hold others to a different standard. HYPOCRITE
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 KILLER KING KAMEHAMEHA lied to his rival and said he wold be safe, murdered his rival, then claimed all of hawaii for himself.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 Remember what I wrote to you about leaving personal prejudice out of this? Let's keep this civil, shall we? So when I say that, that means leave out "killer" King Kamehameha. If you feel that way, then you feel that way but using adjectives like that, I could do the same & wrote COWARD CURATRIX or SHORT TEMPERED CURATRIX, etc. But like I said, let's leave out prejudice shall we?
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina NO LET'S NOT LEAVE PERSONAL PREJUDICE OUT OF THIS NOW YOU'VE FILLED THE THREAD WITH YOUR'S AND - NOW - WANT TO LIMIT WHAT I CAN SAY.
.
BUT NICE TRY. HAHAHA
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 Wait, how can I fill this thread when everyone can see that there is more than just my name in here? YOu replied, so yes, that means you're filling the thread too. But YOUTUBE doesn't regulate who can or who can't fill a thread, that's why they allow comments or allow the user/poser to disable it if they want, but that has nothing to do w/ our discussion so try not to be detered by this which I can see you easily get distracted by.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina YES EVERYONE CAN GO BACK AND SEE YOUR NASTY COMMENTS WITH PERSONAL PREJUDICE TOO.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 My nasty comments w/ personal prejudice? I've had constant emails from more than one person about your prejudice comments under various videos & they complained to me saying they should report you but I tell them to just ignore you b/c you seem to be incoherent in ALL of your responses. Look at your responses, they're written in caps & usually one or two sentences being redundant which that alone says a lot about your level of education or that you can't articulate very well.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina yes and i got two emails saying you are a child molestor and should be reported. but i said no . that's a kanaka tradition.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 child molestor? Didn't I say to keep out personal prejudice out of this discussion? You did understand what I meant by that, right? I"m sorry if that's what you suffered but I assure you, I'm no molestor & if there really was someone that said that about me, which I suspect that you're just lashing out b/c you were molested, then that's fucked up but I hope you get help w/ that b/c that's a serious issue. I myself have gone overboard yelling & nearly attacking a child molestor.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina I WAS JUST SHOWING THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO CLAIM TO KNOW ALL ABOUT YOU AND I WAS DEFENDING YOUR RIGHT TO CONTINE TO POST HERE.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 I'm sure some people know about me b/c I've posted elsewhere about the same issues re the overthow, but on YT, you're the 1st person I've had the opportunity to mention the previous chiefs, which I feel is important. Not unless these people you claim to know me knew me fr another forum?
mamoahina 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 unfortunately...the US laws dictates that justice needs to be done in a certain way, so...that child molestor I almost had my hands on got to walk free...for a little bit until someone else took justice into their hands, so...again, I apologize for your own personal experience.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina oh now ya wanna live by u.s. law HAHAHAHA WELL OK, IN THE FUTURE LET'S ALL DO THAT. RIGHT NOW THOUGH, BY WHAT YOU SAID. THE TAKEOVERS ARE IN THE PAST
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 No, I don't want to live by US law, I have to abide by US laws if I'm in the US. So me allowing the US laws to handle child molestors as dictated by their laws is just that. But as far as the takeovers, they are in the past, yes...i'm glad we're on the same page now. I guess I finally learned to come down to your level & write less complicated & more direct w/ you in order for you to understand, but yes, the takeovers are in the past as you said.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 Kamehameha killed his rivals, but let me ask you this. Why aren't you talking about what his rival did? Shall I name who his rivals were since I know you can't? Explain to people here why Kalanikupule was killed & what he did. Same goes for Keouakuahuula. Let's see if you can really keep this on topic. My guess is you'll be immature in your response, but hey, it's a shot.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina HAHAHA NOW YOU ARE GOING TO 'DEFEND AND JUSTIFY' KANAKA TAKEOVERS.... murder, lying stealing. hahahaha
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 Why am I evil? I"m not the one who's portraying kanakas as idiotic & confusing people on purpose w/ half truths & not answering like a mature adult to responses. Because that's all I'm asking, like in any NORMAL situation, but you're turning me into the evil one, why exactly, b/c I can provide facts & clarify truths? Or is it that your ego really is hurt & you're looking at anything to throw at me?
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina LOL YOU ARE PROTRAYING KANAKAS AS HYPOCRITS
. You claim kanaka TAKEOVERS are ok even with lying, murder and stealing the other kings land.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 No, that's YOUR interpretation. Remember CURATRIX, you're trying to justify the US takeover as it being justified & legal & now telling me to get over it b/c you're admitting that it was wrong, but you do that by bring up killings by Kamehameha but as I pointed out what type of change Kamehameha made in his unification just as it happened elsewhere, you are saying that its hypocritical when I pointed out how it's not the same & supposedly Haoles come off as superior but theyre not
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina NO I AM NOT TRYING TO DEFEND IT. IT'S A DONE DEAL.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 it's people such as yourself who paint this romanticize fanatsy about HI of a paradisic, blissful, serene place loaded w/ passive natives who would be at your beckon call. Then you come onto YOUTUBE to paint a diff. image when you realize we're like ordinary people & can think intelligently, even more so than yourself.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina it's kanaka's like yourself that think kanakas have the right to LIE, MURDER AND STEAL. . .
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 Where did i say that Kanakas have the right to lie, murder & steal? You constantly turn things around. Here I'm thinking you're just an American but now I'm wondering, is English your 1st lang.? Maybe my writing is too advanced for you, since I know I get too wordy & not straight to the point at times...my apologies. If that's the case, I can TRY to just be brief & to the point b/c you seem to be all over the place in ur responses & are hung up on lie, murder & steal.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina you are defending your killer-king
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 I don't know how many times you have to write that I defend the killers. Before that, you kept on writing to me & everyone else about the abdication, before that, i can't remember, but he point is, you find something unrelated & stick to it to avoid the facts. How old are you really? Seem like you have a comprehension problem & I'd like to know rather than waste my time.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina ARE FORCED TAKEOVERS ACCEPTABLE?
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 That's a silly question curatrix, forced takeovers aren't acceptable. but do you see what I'm saying about the past? You use Kamehameha as a means to justify the USA's wrong doings. But if we look at who Kamehameha took over, his captors did the same thing to others. I mentioned Kalanikupule & his father & his uncle & the death of Kahahana. If you need references to understand that part of history, shoot me a pvt mgs I'll give you good references on that, plus it's in English
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina OK. SO - ALL - THE TAKE OVERS OF THE PAST ARE TO BE ACCEPTED AND FORGOTTEN.
.
I'M WITH YA.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 Well, the takeovers of the past should be understood, not misunderstod, which is why I had to explain to you what that was all about. Again, not that these things should be forgotten, b/c I still educate a lot of people, foreigners esp. (Non-AMericans) about the history of Hawaii, good & bad, everything so they have a better understanding.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina UNDERSTOOD AND LEFT IN THE PAST
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 Correct, & if you feel the need to reassure yourself that this is in the past, then I'll agree w/ you on this. That what was done was illegal.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina so since it's in the past, it will be left in the past and no apologies or corrections for the U.S. takeover is necessary - and that no apologies or corrections for the Killer-K takeover is nessecessary
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 The takeover yes, it is in the past. The righting the wrong, it's up to the people. Or was that your big beef all along, thinking that people have no right and only YOU could decide the fate of Hawaiians? If so, then I think you're threading on dangerous waters. People such as yourself have this innate belief that only YOU can decide what's best for Hawaiians but you should really let that go. I don't see why it would matter to you anyway, what would you have to lose?
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina OK, LETS LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE. A STATEWIDE VOTE FOR ALL CITIZENS.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 So you think it would be fair if Americans voted to see if Iraq could be a part of the US? B/c as i've said it before here (but maybe not to you) that u cant put 2 vote an issue that was wronged by having people who benefited from stealing of the land. Doesn't that make sense?
mamoahina 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 And I thought you got over what Kamehameha did? Or are you still bitter about losing or looking like a fool b/c please, as I said, I didn't mean to do that, I just wanted people to understand the truth & we can't have people twisitng the truth but in the end I'm not the one making you look like the enemy or an idiot...remember that.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina LOL YOU ARE THE ONE DEFENDING LYING MURDERING, AND STEALING if it's done by kanaka. can't get dumber than that
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 No, no, I didn't mean for you to be confused & I know you feel it's dumb simply b/c you don't understand it & I can tell by you writing all caps how upset you are, but this isn't about your ego, or your personal bad experiences or your molestation past. I can't explain anymore if you can't comprehend an intelligent ADULT conversation or discussion abt Kamehameha's unification, the chiefs he conquered & those chiefs whom they've killed vs. USA"s illegal overthrow. And I won't.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina LOL . . . i write in caps cause in special education they do that for the retards to help them read and I was just trying to help you.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 But this isn't special ED here. In netspeak, when writing in caps, that indicates shouting/yelling, just FYI. But I know you already knew that I'm not a retard if you're implying that, b/c that, in netspeak, is ad hominem attacks which again, validates people contacting me abt ur immaturity & personal attacks. But now we can see why, you were molested, u accuse others of being molestors, that's very messed up. & as others said, u obviously are challenged...intellectually.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina NO it's not special ed. but you have well.... some signs of not being to swift on the uptake.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 What signs? If that were true, people I work wtih would have issue w/ that & I wouldn't be in the position I am today nor as successful as I am today if that were true. Again, you seriously need to relinquish this bitter feeling & any bad experience & keep this on topic rather than drag your personal vendetta into this. You're only entertaining yourself & making yourself look like a fool, it really is pathetic.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina Try not using your work computer to comment on youtube.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 I'm not using my work computer at all. I only use my personal comp., my MacBook to be precise.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina Well if you are on here during your work hours, it will be easy enough for your employer to determine.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 no actually I'm not at work right now. believe me, if I were, I wouldn't have time to reply until after I get off from work, so no, you are wrong at that. Try again if you want, but remember, I'm not the one who looks like the idiot here.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 Don't you think that we all know what you're doing here? You feel that this is all about you and to satisfy your ego, you make ad hominem attacks but every time you come up with something ridiculous, I immediately & efficiently can counter-argue your ridiculous statements & support it w/ facts so you attempt to confuse people by coming back w/ 1 or 2 sentences & most of the time if it's not just an immature remark, it's unfounded such as telling me not to use my work comp.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina 'WE' the voices in your head?
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 No, not the voices, when I say "we" I meant the people who had sent me messages. Do you remember that when I mentioned that? Or are you confused again?
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina Yes well 'WE" (the people that sent me emails stating you are a child molester) see you say kanakas can lie, murder and steal and it's ok.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 CURATRIX...I know you're angry, bitter, hurt & your ego is busted, but that's no reason to make false & SERIOUS accusations esp. regarding MOLESTATION b/c to me, that's not a laughing matter at all. It's one of those tabu subjects that you never accuse or make fun of someone & you definitely crossed the line there. You can be prejudice & say you hate me & kanakas but to make fun of molested people is a big "no no" in my book. That's very uncalled for & you know it!
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina from what those that emailed me stated, you have been stopped and that makes you bitter cause ya don't get the love kanaka style.
.
even so, I defend your right to continue to post
.
you defend the wrongs of kanaks but are obsessed with pointing the finger at others.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
I didn't accuse you. I said others emailed me stating that
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 YOu come here personally attacking me, you attack other Hawaiians, and now b/c you cannot reply in a civil manner, you confuse the topic. I hate to be blunt w/ you but I'll just come out & say it. Please, by all means, just get some balls, grow up, be a real man for once! Argue what you believe is true & support it w/ facts, don't make personal attacks on everyone here b/c that's grounds for dismissal according to YT policies & making molestation accuastions is a serious mtr.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina You come here attacking me and haolies and the U.S. and defend kanaka takeovers but scream like a bitch at anyone else's takeover.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 I didn't come here attacking anyone at all. You are getting personal bring up molestation accuastions, something very serious, you picked on other kanakas here & myself trying to pick & prod my personal life mentioning my work. And if anyone is screaming like a bitch, it wasn't me & you know it. You're just hurt & angry, just as that other Hawn person verified & he had a discussion w/ that 15yr old & some other person who verified your behavior in other channels.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 You've been doing nothing but personal attacks b/c that is YOUR way of venting, YOUR way of screaming like this bitch you claim I am doing, when I've been doing nothing but revalidating the facts which you twisted & you post elsewhere or bring up something related & twist my words just as you twist the truth AND/OR you seriously cannot comprehend English very well. Now when I tell you to "man up", you scream like a bitch & accuse me of it.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina you are the one making insults. read your own posts
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 You write the same thing over & over again for 24 hrs. or so like you did w/ abdication then when after the truth has been beaten down into the people you've been trying to persuade, you pick something else to write about. You get upset b/c I say to be mature, man up, & that Hawn guy mentioned how I made you feel like an idiot which wasn't my intention actually, but now you retaliate by making a serious accusation about molestation & fabricate that others said that abt me?
mamoahina 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mamoahina
. MAKE UP YOUR MIND.
1. ALL TAKEOVERS IN THE PAST STAND?
(or just the ones you like)
curatrix2008 12 minutes ago
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@mamoahina LET ME GUESS, it's ok when kanakas insult hahahahaha or lie, murder or steal... hahaha
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@mamoahina if you have something to say, post it in here. your nonsense about making personal remarks out of sight of others isn't going to continue.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mamoahina MAKE UP YOUR MIND. IF YOU DON'T WANT PERSONAL REMARKS AND INSULTS............. THEN KNOCK IT OFF
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@mamoahina WELL you countered with IT'S OK WHEN KANAKAS LIE, MURDER AND STEAL. A brilliant argument. LOL
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 Wait, are you saying I actually said/wrote that it's okay when Kanakas lie? I don't recall that at all but if I did write that, please show it to me. But again, for the millionth time, to reiterate, you are taking it way out of proportion & I know that your English level is barely basic, I was pointing out that Kamehameha did not kill innocents, but rather those people also killed & them before that too.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 But since you're very redundant abt the killings & name callings of Kamehameha in order to make yourself feel superior even though you definitely can't be compared to a chief who was skilled in battle & governance, why are you always avoiding my questions?
mamoahina 1 year ago
DEFENDING & JUSTIFYING - KILLER KING: What do you mean it's not the same that they had a diff. king? If Kamehameha didn't do what he did at the advice of his council of chiefs whose people were unhappy & were oppressed, oppression probably would've continued, but still doesn't tie to the US illegally taking over even though they knew well how to handle themselves in a civil manner. Kalanikupule & his father Kahekili had Kahahana killed, & in the end, Kamehameha's forces killed Kalanikupule.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@mamoahina MAKE UP YOUR MIND.
1. ALL TAKEOVERS IN THE PAST STAND?
(or just the ones you like)
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@mamoahina SOoooo if both takeovers are in the past, then lets either adjust both of them or let them stand.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 But you contend that somehow, an apology to myself (a descendant of Keawemauhili through my mother whose mother was the daughter of Kaauamo, the daughter of Keawemauhili who was the son of Keawemauhili who was the granddaughter of the chief Keawemauhili killed by his nephew Keouakuahuula, done by myself whose paternal grandfather was the great-grandson of D.N., a descendant of Kamehameha on both sides of his family. How is that an adjustment & validates the illegal overthrow?
mamoahina 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 You've done nothing but throw insults at other people, at Hawaiians, then you steer the conversations away from the topic & when I substantiate your half truths w/ clarification, you bail & post elsewhere or pick on 15yr olds or repeat what others say here to disconcert the real issues. So tell me again how I look dumb?
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina EITHER TAKEOVERS ARE IN THE PAST AND TO BE FORGOTTEN OR THEY ARE OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.
.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@mamoahina YOU WANT TO DEFEND AND EXCUSE MURDER, LYING STEALING IF YOUR KILLER KING DOES IT............ BUT YA GET ALL INDIGNANT SAYING HAOLIES DID THE SAME THING. . .
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 I didn't say the haoles did the same thing, you're the one who is saying that. I'm saying that you cannot justify one past w/ another. You're talking about the unfication of Kamehameha in 1790 - 1810 w/ the so called CIVILIZED nation state of the USA taking over another independent state. 2 different situations.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina tell ya what. STOP BEING A DEFENDER OF LYING, MURDERING AND STEALING.
.
start a campaign to apologize to the descendants of KILLER-K's victims
start a campaign to return the land to them if soverignty comes through
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 Why would I want to start a campaign to apologize to the descendants of whose ancestors were killed? That's like apologizing to myself & everyone else apologizing to themselves. We're all products of both the defeated & those who defeated. but everyone knows that. That still doesn't change the fact that what the US did was wrong & you trying to thwart this whole conversation to go in one direction & yet another & constantly misread everything is not getting YOU anywhere.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina IT'S NOT THE SAME. . . THEY HAD A DIFFERENT KING. AND IF KILLER-K hadn't murdered him. it might have all been different. SO APOLOGIZE YOU DESCENDANT OF A LYING MURDERING THIEF.
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 not unless you can explain other wise why you're so prejudice against kanakas & can admit that no local has actually picked on you or discriminated against you? I'm guessing no, but there's usually a reason why people like yourself are singled out vs the foreigners who've assimilated & intermarried w/ locals.
mamoahina 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mamoahina SOOOoooo . . . ARE FORCED TAKEOVERS ACCEPTABLE?
curatrix2008 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mamoahina SOOOOOoooo . . . ARE FORCED TAKEOVERS ACCEPTABLE?
curatrix2008 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 What do you mean it's not the same that they had a diff. king? If Kamehameha didn't do what he did at the advice of his council of chiefs whose people were unhappy & were oppressed, oppression probably would've continued, but still doesn't tie to the US illegally taking over even though they knew well how to handle themselves in a civil manner. Kalanikupule & his father Kahekili had Kahahana killed, & in the end, Kamehameha's forces killed Kalanikupule.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@curatrix2008 Kamehameha saw himself as a British subject at that time so he was justifying the death of Capt. Brown & his crew since it was Kalanikupule who caused their deaths.
mamoahina 1 year ago
@mamoahina - now you are a liar. when did i paint a picture of hawaii as a paradise. YOU LIE . YOU ARE A LIAR
curatrix2008 1 year ago