I’m curious and it’s not clear to me what you’re saying. I think you’re saying that it is not true that native Hawaiian land was taken by force by Americans. I base that on the following:
I’m reading that as “But, these people sold and leased much of their title to foreigners – it wasn’t taken from them.” Do I have that right?
Sorry if this is a hijack, OtakuLoki, but I think it goes to the crux of your OP, namely:
Without that, the grounds for pitting Will mostly disappear. Except for the Godwinism, of course.
George Will’s no Ann Coulter. That woman is crazy - it amazes me she’s actually get paid to rant and rave instead of wandering the streets like most of her peers are.
Will, in contrast, is lucid and fully capable of functioning in normal society. But that said, he’s often disingenuous in his writing. He frames his arguments in terms that allow him to claim an unbiased impartiality - but he’s usually advancing a partisan agenda and makes sure that the issue is considered in a manner that favors his preferred outcome.
A recent example is his discussions about rising gas prices. Will has on several occasions stated that the price rise is illusionary - that the price has stayed fairly constant if you adjust it for the cost-of-living. That sounds reasonable until you realize the cost-of-living is based on the price of commodities like gas. Obviously the price of gas is going to hold constant if you adjust it for any changes.
A more historic example was Will’s commentary of Reagan’s debate performance. Will was glowing in his praise of Reagan after his first debate with Carter. What wasn’t revealed until later was that Will had been working with Reagan as a consultant before the debate and some of Reagan’s lines that Will was praising had been written by Will himself.
Yow. Thanks for clarifying; as often as it happens, I’m always taken aback when I come across someone who’s either a nutter, a sociopath, or simply a right bastard.
Having now (hopefully) insulted you, I feel obligated to provide some type of argument support. And I’ll apologize in advance for the length of this post; from what I gather, pursuing this would be the argumentative equivalent of wrestling with a pig: nothing productive will be accomplished, I’ll get dirty, and the pig will enjoy it. So, I’ll lay it all out here to be done with it and then let it go.
I’ll assume that you’re espousing a view similar to that found here. I reject that analysis on the grounds of artificially imposing a Western/European legal and conceptual framework on the situation (particularly when considering a 19th century viewpoint), reducing what is a blatant case of social injustice to mere legal wrangling. To me, there’s a very close parallel to the “sale of Manhattan”; while said “sale” cannot technically be considered “stealing” (as there was an agreed-to exchange), I can imagine Peter Minuit turning to a cohort just after closing the deal and gleefully whispering, “60 guilder?!? What a steal!” At best, it can be viewed as a mistake that results in an invalid contract. Honesty about human nature dictates something much worse.
In line with the “legal vs. ethical” stance I’m putting forward, I’m reminded of an argument I had over the illegality of the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy a couple years back here on the SDMB. It was with Weirddave, I think – IIRC, his position was that at the moment Liliuokalani ceded power, no law was in effect. Therefore, since “illegal” requires “law”, the overthrow could not be illegal, by definition. What a load of crap.
As anyone with an iota of experience in logic knows, without shared foundational axioms an argument is impossible. To say that Hawaiian land was not taken from them because they “sold or leased much of their title” is akin to being restricted to euclidian geometry in modern (cosmological) physics: that pesky 5th postulate renders it incorrect. In particular, when considering “aboriginal title” (as is done in the link above), I call into question the very notions of “landowning entity”, “actual and exclusive”, and “occupancy and use” on which their conclusions rely. In fact, I suppose I take issue with applying the notion of “title” in the first place, at least from my understanding of the Hawaiian point of view.
For the record, I actually like George Will. Not that I necessarily agree with him for any given item, but I do find that his arguments are at least cogent and worth considering. I also don’t have a strong position on Hawaiian sovereignty; it’s a complex issue for which I have neither the legal, historical, nor cultural knowledge to adequately address it. And even if I did, the passage of time renders any resolution inherently unfair to some group of people. However, with the little I do know and the experiences I’ve had, there’s no doubt in my mind that the overthrow was illegal and that the Hawaiian people were fucked by the U.S. (American interests at least, if one says the government itself played only a passive role). To claim otherwise, as you do, is to admit being either a legal weasel, an asshole, or possibly both. You choose; I’m done with my little diatribe.
My haole opinion probably doesn’t count for much, but just because Hawai’i got fucked out of it’s kingdom by massive American companies and lazy American government oversight, that could in no way equate to the wholesale slaughter of native North Americans by the U.S. Government.
I was born in Wailuku, and my ancestors fought under Stand Watie’s command. I dunno what that makes me-- Maybe just “Gringo” around here…
Just for the record, I do not recall having a discussion about the Hawaiian monarchy on these boards ever. That’s not to say I didn’t…but it sure doesn’t ring any bells with me.
My absolute and most sincere and humble apologies. It was actually DrDeth in this thread from 2005; I’m not sure what it was that led me to recall your name.
It just wasn’t that hard to find once I took the 30 seconds to search for it. :smack: Again, my apologies.
Well said, Liberal. Will’s argument is not far removed from the revisionist history that minimizes the impact of the Trail. “They were just moving from one place to another, and we GAVE them the place to move to!” I suppose you and I should keep our mouths shut and be grateful, just as African-Americans should be grateful for the “advances” that slavery brought to their people.
But still you got it wrong. “IIRC, his position was that at the moment Liliuokalani ceded power, no law was in effect. Therefore, since “illegal” requires “law”, the overthrow could not be illegal, by definition. What a load of crap.” This was not my position.
And, to unearth a 3 fucking yo argument, then take my position, which was stated over some half-dozen posts, complete with cites and everything, and distil it down to one sound bite is being a jerk. And, still, you got it wrong.
JesusKeeristonacrutch, carrying a grudge for 3 fucking years for a minor debate on a MB. :rolleyes:
George Will is correct here, however. The overthrow was backed up by force, but no one was shot, and the overthrow was mainly done by Hawaian citizens, not outsiders. The overthrow was done by the Reform Party, not by the Marines. True, many of the Reform party were not “natives”, *but they were still Citizens and residents. *In any case the reaction of the Reform party was reasonable, Queen Liliuokalani threatened to abrogate the Constitution and bring back an absolute Monarchy, including Taboo and other things that today we’d find completely unacceptable. She was pretty much alone in that, and had little or no support from even her own native population. Her act in overthrowing the Constitution was completely illegal, and the Reform party was acting under the law, not her.
Note that in 1959, Hawaii voted to join the Union, and the vote was 17-1 in favor.
It’s true that in 1993 there was an “apology”- which was a meaningly act of PCness. The apology appear based upon “facts” from the Blount Report, which was not only biased, but contained many significant errors.
The Morgan Report had much better facts (but was still biased):
wiki: *"The Morgan Report was an 1894 report concluding an official U.S. Congressional investigation into the events surrounding the Hawaiian Revolution of 1893, including the alleged role of U.S. military troops (both bluejackets and marines) in the overthrow of Queen Liliʻuokalani. Along with the Blount Report submitted in 1893, it is one of the main source documents compiling the testimony of witnesses and participants in the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in January 1893. The Morgan Report was the final result of an official U.S. Congressional investigation into the overthrow, conducted by the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, whose chairman was Senator John Tyler Morgan, Democrat of Alabama.
The Blount Report had concluded that the U.S. Minister to Hawaii John L. Stevens carried out unauthorized partisan activities, including the landing of U.S. Marines under a false or exaggerated pretext, to support the anti-royalist conspirators and that these actions were instrumental to the success of the overthrow of the queen.[1] The Morgan Report contradicted the Blount Report, finding all individuals involved in the overthrow – with the notable exception of Queen Liliʻuokalani – “not guilty”. The Native Hawaiians Study Commission Report of 1993, commenting on the two competing reports, states: “The truth lies somewhere between the two reports.”[2]
With the Morgan Report’s submission in 1894, further efforts by Cleveland’s administration to restore the Queen ended. Cleveland accepted the conclusions of the Morgan Report, continued to engage in diplomatic relations with the Provisional Government, recognized the Republic of Hawaii upon its declaration on July 4, 1894, and even negotiated treaties originally ratified under the Kingdom government with the Republic…
The majority report submitted contained the following conclusions[13]:
* A condition of affairs existed in Honolulu which led naturally to the apprehension that violence or civil commotion would ensue, in which the peace and security of American citizens would be put in peril, as had been done on three or more separate occasions previously when changes occurred or were about to occur in the government of Hawaiʻi;
* The action of the Queen in an effort to overturn the constitution of 1887, to which she had sworn obedience and support, had been accepted and treated by a large and powerful body of the people as a violation of her constitutional obligations, revolutionary in its character and purposes and that it amounted to an act of abdication on her part, so far as her powers and the rights of the people under the constitution of 1887 were concerned. This state of opinion and this condition of the executive head of the Hawaiian Government neutralized its power to protect American citizens and other foreigners in their treaty rights, and also their rights under the laws of Hawaiʻi;
* In landing the troops from the Boston there was no demonstration of actual hostilities, and their conduct was as quiet and as respectful as it had been on many previous occasions when they were landed for the purpose of drill and practice. In passing the palace on their way to the point at which they were halted, the Queen appeared upon the balcony and the troops respectfully saluted her by presenting arms and dipping the flag, and made no demonstration of any hostile intent;
* The committee agree that such was the condition of the Hawaiian Government at the time that the troops were landed in Honolulu from the steam warship Boston; that there was then an interregnum in Hawaii as respects the executive office; that there was no executive power to enforce the laws of Hawaiʻi, and that it was the right of the United States to land troops upon those islands at any place where it was necessary in the opinion of our minister to protect our citizens;..."
Of course, the Morgan report has it’s detractors too. (Morgan has been called a racist, however, Blount seems to have been one also)
But in any case the facts are these:
The Queen attempted to illegally overthrow the Kingdom’s Constitution. In this, she had little support.
In repsonse, a powerful group of Natives and non-native citizens, aka the Reform Party, overthrew the Queen. *Not *outsiders.
US forces did not directly intervene or shoot anyone. One can speculate how much the threat of possible force helped the Reform Party.
However, “Threat of possible force” is not the same thing as “force”. Although there were some shenanigans in the annexation of Hawaii, there was techically no “force”.
And there’s this, if the USA has not annexed Hawaii, it surely would have been annexed by another foriegn power, even perhaps Germany. Can anyone think this would have been better?
Oh, ferfuckssake, you nancy. There’s no grudge; for all intensive purposes, I stated that when I said, “I’m reminded of an argument I had over the illegality of the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy a couple years back here on the SDMB.” It was merely a point of reference that gave context and background, nothing more. If you really need to be mollified, try on some big-boy BVDs and pretend that paragraph isn’t there; it won’t change my point.
As to my 3 sentence summary of your position, here’s the nugget that stuck with me (from post #28 in the '05 thread):
I’m still comfortable with my view of your argument. If this were GD, perhaps I’d feel an obligation to take it further. As it stands, I don’t, and I’ll simply pencil you in as belonging to both the “legal weasel” and “asshole” camps.
