I’m curious about one thing: If the Hawaiian monarchy were to be restored, would the monarch then restore the separate islands to the people from whom they were taken or would he (or she) continue to enjoy the fruits of a violent overthrow of the local chiefs which led to the unification of the islands?
(I am still reading all this. I am seeing nothing new.)
Is there even a current claimant to the Hawaiian throne to give the country back to?
How far back in time (sovereignty-wise) should we go in returning the land to the people who we deem to be the lawful owners?
The question here is of self-determination.
There really is value in the right of a people to determine their own collective fate. We wouldn’t be OK with being annexed by Canada, even if our standard of living and everyday lives didn’t change at all.
And there are plenty of Pacific islands out there where people are ruling their fates. They are determining for themselves what their laws will be, how they will interact with other nations, how they will use and distribute their land and who they will trust with their power. They are looking to their own past and crafting their own future for themselves.
But Hawaii just got unlucky. The native Hawaiians happened to be a Pacific nation that was at the wrong place at the wrong time to determine their own fate. Now their interests are relegated to maybe five minutes of time a year a quarter of the way around the world at the US congress. There is no getting around it. Nobody in congress is looking out for the native Hawaiians. They effectively have no role in the greater world.
And so instead of a nation with a proud heritage, strong traditions and beautiful land, we have a scattering of people largely working at crappy jobs at hotels owned by non-natives. The islands used to be self-sufficient. Families and tribes used to have enough land to live on. Now they are reduced to working for others on what was once their very own land. All because the US happened to set it sights on this particular set of islands. This is a loss and a bloody shame.
There arn’t easy answers. A hundred years is a blink of the eye geopolitically, and people have handled being colonized for much longer than that and still gotten their own nation in the end. I don’t think giving back all of the islands is a solution at this point, but I don’t see why we a native American style model (although please, give them some land that can be farmed and developed so that they can work towards self-sufficientcy) wouldn’t be a decent option.
Akahi Nui (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akahi_Nui), grandnephew of Queen Liliuokalani staged his coronation in 1998: http://www.freehawaii.org/corn.html
But the more broadly recognized claimant is Quentin Kawananakoa (who is a bigwig in the Hawaii Republican Party, and therefore (my WAG) probably is not considered a suitable candidate by Hawaiian nationalists): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quentin_Kawananakoa
[dozens of Hawaii Groups spit on the ground] :wally
Quentin ain’t no pretender to the throne. :dubious:
I was going to guess several, in light of the number Romanov claimants, so may I assume those are only the most prominent two?
Just because the Royal family didn’t want to go, that doesn’t mean that the “will of the people” was thwarted. Non-natives were considered citizens before the “overthrow” and from what I see, the ordinary Native had no big problem with the provisional government. Not to mention the Royalty wasn’t all that popular. Certainly, there was no resistance. Having a despotic Monarchy overthrown isn’t a tragedy you know.
Face it, if the American “natives’ hadn’t taken over, foriegners would have. Hawaii got lucky, not unlucky. The overthrow was made by those who were residant and citizens, even if not natives. It was bloodless, and (other than the Royal family) no one got their land stolen or their rights trampled or anything. In fact, the non-royal natives had more rights afterwards. And, it wasn’t turned into a 'foriegn colony” ruled by the sword and the whi- as nearly every other spot on the globe was.
minor nit-pick Virginia, Mass, Kentucky, Penn call themselves “Commonwealths”
It gets confusing. Those four states call themselves commonwealths, which in this case is synonymous with state, but so do the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, which are US territories, like the Territory of Guam and the Territory of American Samoa. From http://welcome.topuertorico.org/government.shtml:
"*(Government) Type:
Commonwealth associated with the US. The island’s inhabitants possess all the rights and obligations of United States citizens such as paying social security, receiving federal welfare and serving in the armed forces, except for the right to vote in presidential elections and the obligation to pay federal taxes.
Interesting Facts:
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense on official documents, acts and/or laws; includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. The U.S. has twelve unincorporated territories, also known as possessions, and two commonwealths. The major possessions are American Samoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. All of these have a non-voting representative in the U.S. Congress. The major commonwealths are Puerto Rico and the Northern Marianas. Commonwealths have their own constitutions and greater autonomy than possessions, and Guam is currently in the process of moving from the status of unincorporated territory to commonwealth. The residents of all of these places are full U.S. citizens, with the exception of those on American Samoa who are U.S. nationals, but not citizens.
U.S. Commonwealths/Territories include: American Samao (AS), Baker Island*, Howland Island*, Guam (GU), Jarvis Island*, Johnston Atoll*, Kingman Reef*, Midway Islands, Navassa Island*, Northern Mariana Islands (MP), Palau (PW), Palmyra Atoll*, Puerto Rico (PR), U.S. Virgin Islands (St. Croix, St. John and St. Thomas) (VI), and Wake Island*. Puerto Rico has its own Olympic team and competes in the Miss Universe pageant as an independent nation.
- Uninhabited "*
As a thoroughgoing Yankee Imperialist I welcome the small nations of the world that are willing to play nice to join the United States and still regret that we gave up Cuba and the Philipines. Those people would make damned good Americans and I look forward to a second chance with Cuba when Castro kicks.
He’s certainly never claimed it. By “more widely recognized” I meant, as current head of the Royal Family.
This site might interest you – the Expansionist Party of the United States: http://members.aol.com/XPUS/
Major nitpick: It doesn’t matter what those states call themselves, they are in fact republics as required by the constitution of the United States.
Here’s my reference for my assertion in post #56 (bolding mine):
Constitution for the United States of America, Article IV, Section 4:
Thanks, though for some reason some garbage got tacked on the end of that when I clicked it so let’s try http://members.aol.com/XPUS/
Hmmm, “radical centrists?” Meaning “We’re sick of extremists from both sides and want to kick them in the shins?” I can go for that.
Not shown on that website is a group promoting statehood for Guyana. Some of their logic is impeccable, noting that a third of their population has already emigrated to the US. And with a 36% Hindu population this will help ensure Holi and Diwali become proper Merkin holidays, like Cinco de Mayo. 
As for the Philippines, several UHF stations in the Chicago area show some Philippine programming, especially wedding receptions and ballroom dancing. I was born into the American Middle Class but I will NEVER be as American Middle Class as those people, whether the program was recorded in Hoffman Estates or Manila.
Well, bear in mind that in offering to annex the Philippines, Cuba or Guyana, we would be running up against the same problem that has complicated discussions of the future status of Puerto Rico: These people are not Americans. Culturally speaking, I mean. The Puerto Ricans are American citizens from birth but they still have the same Spanish-speaking Latin-Catholic culture they had before their island was transferred from Spain to the U.S.; and that will never change. Historically, we have offered statehood only to territories that already had been thoroughly Americanized, by English-speaking (and white) American settlers. After the U.S. won the Mexican-American War, there was a movement to annex all of Mexico, not just the disputed territories from Texas to California – but it failed, because nobody wanted to face the prospect of extending the vote to millions of Mexicans. A 19th-Century proposal to annex San Domingo (now the Dominican Republic) failed for similar reasons. Even Hawaii was Americanized by “filibusterers” before the U.S. took it over. At least, practically everyone there now speaks English as their first language (which is not the case in PR and never will be). But the Philippines? Cuba? Guyana is English-speaking, but still . . .
I can’t even convince myself that Hawaiian independence is viable. Even if by some miracle a slight majority of Hawaiians supported independence, what future would that be? Sugar is dead. Tourism would suffer. The military bases might well close. Hawaii’s economy would collapse and it would be yet another desperately poor Pacific microstate.
The independence movement is pretty much an ethnic Hawaiian thing. They’ve been a tiny minority since before the revolution and the chances of an independent kingdom rising again are vanishingly small. This is in many ways a matter of pride more than anything - yes, we are desperately poor and we drink a lot and die sooner than anyone else in the state, but we were once an independent nation and we will be again! Realistically, they’ll eventually gain the same status as mainland Indian tribes. There will be a government that doesn’t really do anything, rights to land no one living in Hawaii can afford, and maybe someday an ethnic Hawaiian-owned casino in Waianae. For ordinary ethnic Hawaiians, little will change, kingdom or no kingdom.