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…
This just happened to be the discussion on WBEZ’s Worldview 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.
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.
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 
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.
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.)
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.
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:
“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 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…
Since has any revolution been legal? 
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):
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I’m a people, and I’m not annoyed. Plus, I think it was a direct answer.
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.
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