# Hawaiian Independence, convince me **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 29, 2005, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaiian-independence-convince-me/314700 "2005-07-29T03:48:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaiian-independence-convince-me/314700/21 "2005-07-29T23:16:56Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > This would require the creation of a single political entity, analogous to the Indian tribal governments, to represent the natives. As I recall, this is itself a sticking point; formation of a single political entity was (is?) fraught with disagreements as to their aims, representation, etc. Interesting to read that a bill is (almost) on the floor of the Senate. I really do hope that someone pops their head in to do a better job of defending Hawaiian sovereignty than I am… ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaiian-independence-convince-me/314700/22 "2005-07-29T23:29:16Z")
This just happened to be the discussion on [WBEZ’s Worldview](http://www.wbez.com/audio_library/wv_rajul05.asp) today. You can listen in that link or go to various links there. Bluntly the anti guy seemed most convincing.His arguments went something like this. The bayonet constitution had occured before the US got involved and at the point of US involvement the Queen was attempting to establish more centralized power. Before the bayonet constitution all Hawiaans, native and nonnative had votes and rights. After annexation all Hawiaans had US citizenship with the full rights thereof. The new law proposes instead that only those with native bloodlines be allowed sovereign status. No land was taken, quality of living was not diminished and is no worse for native Hawiaans than nonnatives. Sovereign status with the ability to be outside of Constitutional controls should be restricted to those like the American Indians who really got shafted. The other side basically tried to say that the first was saying things that he didn’t say. ---
**Author:** ![HubZilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ccd318/32.png) [@HubZilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HubZilla)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaiian-independence-convince-me/314700/23 "2005-07-30T00:11:45Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No Hawaiian Dopers in this thread yet . . . hmmm . . . Looks around… realizes he doesn’t want to touch this with a 10 foot pole… goes back to the beach. Finds an 11-foot pole… The thing is, there are so very few Hawaiians left. It’s gotten so bad that you can get into Kamehameha schools if you’re 1/16 Hawaiian (I’m not making that up!). They’re called “toenail Hawaiians”. I don’t know what this proves one way or the other… but you have to wonder who this Independence would benefit. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaiian-independence-convince-me/314700/24 "2005-07-30T00:18:48Z")
> [@HubZilla](#): > > Looks around… realizes he doesn’t want to touch this with a 10 foot pole… goes back to the beach. > > Finds an 11-foot pole… > > The thing is, there are so very few Hawaiians left. It’s gotten so bad that you can get into Kamehameha schools if you’re 1/16 Hawaiian (I’m not making that up!). They’re called “toenail Hawaiians”. > > I don’t know what this proves one way or the other… but you have to wonder who this Independence would benefit. I meant “Hawaiian residents,” not “Hawaiian natives.” Either way, you seem to be the first one. ---
**Author:** ![HubZilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ccd318/32.png) [@HubZilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HubZilla)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaiian-independence-convince-me/314700/25 "2005-07-30T01:14:05Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I meant “Hawaiian residents,” not “Hawaiian natives.” Either way, you seem to be the first one. I understood. The 10-foot-pole thing is it’s a touchy issue out here, and I didn’t want to sound like the voice of Hawaii 😉 ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaiian-independence-convince-me/314700/26 "2005-07-30T02:08:02Z")
My boyfriend (who was born and bred in Hawaii but is not a Native Hawaiian) and I have been discussing this issue recently. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Next- although there can be arguments that the Annexation was ‘forced’, the Hawaiians _asked_ for Statehood. For well over a century, it’s been “once you are a State- you can’t leave on your own.” There’s really no debate that the events leading up to the annexation of Hawaii were unlawful revolution. If you’re going to make such a ridiculous claim, it’s up to you to provide a cite. In the meantime, check out [The Overthrow of the Monarchy](http://www.hawaii-nation.org/soa.html). Almost nobody in Hawaii is in favor of full Hawaiian sovereignty with everybody else getting out. That doesn’t mean that the Native Hawaiians weren’t wronged, or that they don’t deserve their own land. There isn’t really a good answer. The bill before the Senate sounds like, at the very least, a good step towards redress. (My boyfriend suggests that we could give them Maui, but they have to also take Koholawe.) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaiian-independence-convince-me/314700/27 "2005-07-30T07:10:41Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Yes – as an option preferable to territorial status, not as an option preferable to independence, which was not open for discussion. But it **is** _possible_ to go from Territory to Independence, and by that time (it being some century after the Civil war), the voters were fully aware that once you are a State you can \*\*NOT \*\*regain Independence. They freely choose Statehood, and by an overwhelming vote. Once Statehood has been chosen, it’s over. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaiian-independence-convince-me/314700/28 "2005-07-30T07:17:40Z")
> [@even sven](#): > > There’s really no debate that the events leading up to the annexation of Hawaii were unlawful revolution. If you’re going to make such a ridiculous claim, it’s up to you to provide a cite. The revolution succeeded, thus it was- by definition- lawful. Every successful revolution is lawful, no failed revolution is lawful. That’s exactly and only what makes a revolution “lawful”- success. Does anyone deny the revolution was successful? Was the Declaration of Independence lawful under British law? Of course not. What made it 'lawful"? Success. If a revolution has to be legal under the laws of the current Administration, then America still belongs to England :rolleyes: Thus, the revolution was 'lawful". Unless- you think that the American revolution was illegal, and we still belong to the Crown. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaiian-independence-convince-me/314700/29 "2005-07-30T08:00:09Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The revolution succeeded, thus it was- by definition- lawful. Every successful revolution is lawful, no failed revolution is lawful. That’s exactly and only what makes a revolution “lawful”- success. “Revolution” is a term that grants the events undue legitimacy, as it implies that the native people backed it. Personally, I much prefer “overthrow”. Some would say they are synonyms (as definition 2 of [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) does), but there is most definitely a difference in flavor to the terms. At any rate, “revolution” indicates the exact _lack_ of law; at the time of a revolution, there is no authoratative governing body. If you apply US standards of conduct, the overthrow was illegal. If you apply international law, the overthrow was illegal (at least, as it stands now; I admit I don’t know what the standard was at the time, if there was any, for international law). If you apply standards of anarchy, then the overthrow was successful, yes, but not “legal”, by definition. This says to me that you don’t believe in the right of self-determination, which is the key difference between the American Revolution and the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. And yet, you argue that it was the Hawaiian citizens’ choice for statehood to justify their current standing. Odd, that; an edifice built on foundations of sand… ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaiian-independence-convince-me/314700/30 "2005-07-30T08:11:33Z")
> [@even sven](#): > > My boyfriend (who was born and bred in Hawaii but is not a Native Hawaiian) and I have been discussing this issue recently. > > There’s really no debate that the events leading up to the annexation of Hawaii were unlawful revolution. If you’re going to make such a ridiculous claim, it’s up to you to provide a cite. In the meantime, check out [The Overthrow of the Monarchy](http://www.hawaii-nation.org/soa.html). > > Almost nobody in Hawaii is in favor of full Hawaiian sovereignty with everybody else getting out. That doesn’t mean that the Native Hawaiians weren’t wronged, or that they don’t deserve their own land. There isn’t really a good answer. The bill before the Senate sounds like, at the very least, a good step towards redress. (My boyfriend suggests that we could give them Maui, but they have to also take Koholawe.) Since has any revolution been legal? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaiian-independence-convince-me/314700/31 "2005-07-30T08:17:56Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The revolution succeeded, thus it was- by definition- lawful. Every successful revolution is lawful, no failed revolution is lawful. That’s exactly and only what makes a revolution “lawful”- success. I seem to recall seeing something like that before. Ah, yes, in _Shogun_ (the text below is from memory and thus may very well be just a paraphrase): > [@](#): > > Shogunate official: There is no excuse for fighting your liege lord. > Blackthorn: There are extenuating circumstances. > SO: There can be no extenuationg circumstances. > B: Unless you win. ---
**Author:** ![Fern\_Forest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/71c47a/32.png) [@Fern\_Forest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fern_Forest)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaiian-independence-convince-me/314700/32 "2005-07-30T08:45:58Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > In any case, the “natives” are not that numerous compared to other ethnic groups in Hawaii. From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii#Demographics:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii#Demographics:) I’d be careful about those statistics. I remember hearing strong encouragement for any person with any small amount of Hawaiian blood to go ahead and claim to be Hawaiian from certain groups wanting to increase their numbers for political reasons. And certainly playing politics with the census is nothing new. I think most people don’t really understand this whole thing. They like the word soverignty but don’t really understand what is going to happen with it. The only commercial I’ve seen so far on the subject is one put out … (by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs?) that’s urging people to buy t-shirts proclaiming their Hawaiian identity and support. Actually there’s also some commercials in theaters before the movies urging all Hawaiians to register. But with every little explanation as to what it really means. A sadly common thing in our local politics. I think another part of it is cultural. I think there is a worry that they’re going to lose that which makes us different from the rest of the US. Lose what makes them Hawaiian. And their grandkids are out there listening to rap and dressing funny and watching anime and just being teens in general and doing what they want. Plus there is a whole hell of a lot of intermixing of the races here. And the Hawaiians have been at it since shortly after Cook’s crew set foot on the Big Island. Heck I’ve got Hawaiian blood from my maternal grandfather, although my mother was given up for adoption and raised by two white folk and she married a white guy so I both look and act like I could be from some vague place on the mainland. It’s everywhere and usually in small amounts. To me it all sounds like a power grab and will probably turn out as well as the whole Bishop Estate Trustees affair. In other words you’ll get a few people getting fabulous salaries for doing almost nothing. ---
**Author:** ![SnakesCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4af34b/32.png) [@SnakesCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakesCatLady)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaiian-independence-convince-me/314700/33 "2005-07-30T16:57:47Z")
I tried to learn a little about this issue when I lived in Hawaii, after I discovered that what I had been taught in school was wrong. From what I read, the ruling monarch of an independent nation was removed from her throne by threat of military force. That is wrong, no matter what you call it. The native Hawaiians had aready been severely abused by some of the missionaries and businessmen who swarmed the Islands. However, and this does not make it right, if it had not been us it would have been someone else. Look at the timeline in the Pacific following annexation of Hawaii. She couldn’t have defended herself. It still sucks. I considered myself fortunate to meet a lady who was born and raised in Hawaii while I was there. She “took me under her wing” as it were, so I got to see many things that tourists and the military don’t always get to see. Such a warm, loving culture. And wonderful food!! First time I ever saw beer served at a church function. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaiian-independence-convince-me/314700/34 "2005-07-30T17:05:57Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > “Revolution” is a term that grants the events undue legitimacy, as it implies that the native people backed it. > > If you apply standards of anarchy, then the overthrow was successful, yes, but not “legal”, by definition. > > This says to me that you don’t believe in the right of self-determination, which is the key difference between the American Revolution and the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. And yet, you argue that it was the Hawaiian citizens’ choice for statehood to justify their current standing. … Ah, but they did. True, the Royal Family didn’t but it appears from the various links that there was a good deal of support from the natives. Of course, I must include as 'natives" all those who were legally citizens at the time. Unless you are saying that the American revolution wasn’t “legitimate” unless it had the support of the Indian tribes? :dubious: It was “legal” by the standards of the American revolution. Indeed- it was 'self determination", just as the American revolution was 'self-determination". Note that a good number of Americans were loyalists, and the native tribes weren’t consulted much. And of course I do bring up Statehood. The Citizens at that time voted overwhelmingly to ask for ratification. That’s 'self-determination". They would have been citizens even under old Hawaiin Royal law, which did not discriminate. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaiian-independence-convince-me/314700/35 "2005-07-30T21:19:53Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > Nice, simplistic idea, Lib, but what if the pot has been broken and glued back together multiple times? To which state do we restore it? Which “peaceful honest people” do we “leave … free to pursue their own happiness in their own way,” the people whose ancestors had their land stolen or the people who, generations later, bought that land in good faith? Just leave it be. Don’t we each have enough to keep us busy with our own lives without running (and ruining) the lives of everyone else? Don’t try to “make it right”. Don’t try to “fix it”. Don’t try to “level the playing field”. Just start. Right now. Enforce peace and honesty. Other than that, leave people alone. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaiian-independence-convince-me/314700/36 "2005-07-31T03:11:10Z")
Lib, this is the kind of non-answer that annoys people. Who, in your opinion, is the group that has honesty on its side? The descendants of ethnic Hawaiians who say their land was forcibly stolen from their ancestors and they should get it back? Or the people who currently own the land after buying it on the free market who say they had nothing to do with any theft that happened a hundred years ago? Both sides are claiming they’re the honest one and the other side is lying. Whose version of honesty do you enforce? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaiian-independence-convince-me/314700/37 "2005-07-31T07:51:59Z")
> [@Little Nemo](#): > > Lib, this is the kind of non-answer that annoys people. > > Who, in your opinion, is the group that has honesty on its side? The descendants of ethnic Hawaiians who say their land was forcibly stolen from their ancestors and they should get it back? They _are_ lying. Although soverienty was taken from the Hawaiian Royal Family, force was only implied. And nowhere on any of those sites does it say anything about any land being forcibly taken from any native (other than said Royalty). So, unless whoever it is has a great deal of Royal blood (extremely doubtful), then they are lying. ---
**Author:** ![HubZilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ccd318/32.png) [@HubZilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HubZilla)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaiian-independence-convince-me/314700/38 "2005-07-31T08:01:16Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > They _are_ lying. Although soverienty was taken from the Hawaiian Royal Family, force was only implied. And nowhere on any of those sites does it say anything about any land being forcibly taken from any native (other than said Royalty). So, unless whoever it is has a great deal of Royal blood (extremely doubtful), then they are lying. True, there was nothing forcible about it. Maybe 100 marine marched in, and the Queen didn’t even put up so much as a fight. Just warning about writing a strongly-worded letter to the president. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaiian-independence-convince-me/314700/39 "2005-07-31T08:23:08Z")
> [@Little Nemo](#): > > Lib, this is the kind of non-answer that annoys people. I’m a people, and I’m not annoyed. Plus, I think it was a direct answer. > [@](#): > > Who, in your opinion, is the group that has honesty on its side? The descendants of ethnic Hawaiians who say their land was forcibly stolen from their ancestors and they should get it back? Or the people who currently own the land after buying it on the free market who say they had nothing to do with any theft that happened a hundred years ago? Both sides are claiming they’re the honest one and the other side is lying. Whose version of honesty do you enforce? I already answered this. You can’t know. You can’t decide. You can’t do anything about the past. You can’t draw up a central plan that will solve everyone’s problems and squabbles. You draw the line and say “Enforcement begins now.” Yes, it’s unfair. But it was already unfair, and it will be unfair whether you do something about it or not. The people injured by early explorers aren’t around anymore, and you can’t punish a man for the sins of his father. Refusing to begin enforcement of peace and honesty just because you cannot figure out how to travel back in time and unravel history is Neanderthal in its conception. It’s like a third-world nation saying that it cannot begin holding elections until it has put in place a fully functioning history of democracy, and its populace is as educated as Sweden. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaiian-independence-convince-me/314700/40 "2005-07-31T08:38:06Z")
I think it’s a given that most of us don’t believe in the divine right of kings to rule. So who cares if power was taken from the royal family of Hawaii? Marc [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaiian-independence-convince-me/314700.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hawaiian-independence-convince-me/314700.md?page=3)