@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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
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.
@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!
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.
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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
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
@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
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