Close Topic Options

Politics - Hawai'ian Sovereignty and U.S. Imperial

Did you know that Hawai'i wants it's kingdom back?  Did you know Hawai'i was a kingdom once?  Do you know the circumstances under which Hawai'i became annexed (in 1893), and later included in the United States (in 1956, less than 50 years ago)?

QUOTE

So this is the edifying tale of the overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom. Greed, arrogance, bigotry, racism, lies, terror, treachery, deceit. The U.S. Congress pretty much conceded that ten years ago, offering a formal apology (Joint Resolution 19; see Congressional Record, vol. 139).https://www.counterpunch.org/leupp01162003.html

There is legislation pending in Congress regarding the status of Native Hawai'ians -- the U.S. Government, in its infinite wisdom, wants to accord (classify) Hawai'ians the title, with all of its benefits, as Native Americans.  This would be a disaster, in my opinion (and the opinion of some Hawai'ians).

From Native Hawaiian to Native American?
Inside the Akaka Bill, by Anne Keala Kelly
Hawai`i Island Journal, August 1-15, 2003
https://www.hawaiiislandjournal.com/stories/8a03a.html

QUOTE

A bill that, in its initial form, gave some autonomy to Hawaiians has at last been stripped down to mean total control will belong to the Department of the Interior and a select few Hawaiians. Many Hawaiians still don't understand the process of federal recognition despite four years of questions, disagreements, and an apparent lack of support for the bill outside of the homesteads. And presently, homesteaders are the only members of the Hawaiian community being targeted for "education" about the bill by the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement (CNHA). The legislation, as written, sets up a "Hawaiian governing entity" that takes its orders from the Department of Interior (DOI), the secretary of which changes with each new administration.

What are your thoughts on this?  I think it would be a terrible thing for Native Hawai'ians to be classified as Native Americans.

Roz

Imperial US Sovereignty Hawaiian Politics

Thanks for posting this farseer. It is something I was not really aware of being that I am from another part of the world, but it is very sad and similar to the circumstances of the North American Indians. I have never heard of the people of Hawaii rebeling or showing opposition to the US presence, is it that they like the benefits (if we can call it benefits)?

Politics - Hawai'ian Sovereignty and U.S. Imperial History & Civil Business Politics

The opposition by Native Hawai'ians to U.S. authority over Hawai'i has always been quashed, and usually by force.  The natives were accused of "treason" for trying to overthrow the provisional government.  Queen Lili'uokalani had guns and ammo "found buried" on her property and she was sentenced and fined; she gave in, after 5 of her followers were executed, and abdicated (again) to "gain clemency for her supporters."

QUOTE

On January 16, 1892, the Committee of Public Safety (formed by American businessmen) sent a letter to Stevens claiming that the queen was attempting "with armed force and threats of bloodshed" to impose a new constitution. "We are unable to protect ourselves without aid," whined the sugar barons, "and, therefore, pray for the protection of the United States forces."

The Queen was an eloquent and intelligent lady, and wrote over 100 songs -- one of them the famous  "Aloha Oe."

QUOTE

Queen Lili'uokalani died peacefully at age 79, in November 1917 (that most decisive and hopeful of months in modern history), accorded the priceless gift of U.S. citizenship, and grieving for her colonized people, who'd owned all the land in 1800, 10% of the land in 1893, and almost none of it at her death.

The author of one article says

QUOTE

"But wasn't it all worth it in the end?" you might ask. "I mean, isn't anybody better off being part of the U.S.A.?" Indeed, being a citizen of an imperialist country has its advantages, unevenly distributed though they may be. Having lived in Hawai'i during eleven of my most formative years, I can attest that life can be very, very pleasant even on islands dominated physically and economically by the U.S. military, a tourist industry that degrades and prostitutes the local people and culture, and a declining tropical agriculture.

The Hawai'ian Journal, a newspaper says

QUOTE

At this time, there are only a handful of Hawaiians who are in receipt of state and federal funds. And they are the service agencies and organizations that are all members of CNHA. So, only those with the funding are going to be able to organize."

https://www.hawaiiislandjournal.com/stories/8a03a.html

I don't think there are all that many benefits from the U.S. government itself.  27 military bases, 6 million tourists a year, probably bring in a lot of local money, but where does that money go?  There is a very strong movement for Independence from the U.S., but they are underfunded.  The U.S., of course, is not helping.

Roz

[edit]ADMIN: Farseer, you may wish to leave off the '<' and '>' so that the links work properly. Thanks.

Imperial US Sovereignty Hawaiian Politics

Roz,

I clicked on all three links and got a message each time that the url was not found.  So, I have not been able to read the information.  I have opinions, but since they are uninformed, it probably would be best if I kept them to my self until such time as I can access the articles to which you refer.  I will see if I can get to them some other way, but thought you might want to know that the links don't work.

Imperial US Sovereignty Hawaiian Politics

Farseer, thanks for providing such detailed info. I will follow it up some more. However, the people of these islands are really a conquered people then? Reminds me of the story of the Isle of Anglesey.

Offtopic but, The links are not working because Farseer added '<' and '>' on each end. I will remove it now.

Politics - Hawai'ian Sovereignty and U.S. Imperial

JB, I wouldn't call it a "conquered" people. There was no war. The Queen was framed or set up by the American sugar barons and other groups to be deposed.

Previous generations had allowed Americans with commercial interests to vote and own property, and be very involved in Hawai'ian affairs. When these liberties were about to be withdrawn, and well within the rights of the Hawai'ian government, these groups were angered and actively sought to dethrone the Queen -- who was merely acting in the best interest of Hawai'I and her people.

They lied to get the U.S. military to act on their (financial) behalf. I think at that time that there was already an active military port in Pearl Harbor, so it wasn't a hard task to provide troops.

Not "conquered." Overthrown.

In my opinion.
Roz

Offtopic but, Sorry about the link problem. I post often on another board that requires the <> brackets for the links to work, and didn't know it was different here. Thanks for the tip!

Politics Hawai'ian Sovereignty U.S. Imperial

If not coonquered, then 'enslaved'? Afterall, if a non-native comes into my country and takes my land and bullies my people, what are they? Maybe 'victims' is a better word?

Farseer, I could not help but wonder what is thought in the local schools about the US in Hawaii.

PS > I also notice you write it as Hawai'i, is that the official way of writing it?

Politics Hawai'ian Sovereignty U.S. Imperial Politics Business Civil & History

Some very interesting information here.

As I have mentioned before, I tend strongly towards libertarian ideas.  Because of this, I agree with the idea of protecting both the liberty and sovereignity of the native people.

The problem is that it isn't going to happen.  From a religious point of view, I don't think that the US, or any other modern country, is going to allow any "colonized" people their sovereignity, until those countries are crushed by the end time tribulations.  From a political point of view, it just isn't in the interest of the US to allow ANY state or territory to go its own way.  If Hawaii were to become independent, then Alaska might seek to become free.  Then Texas, Southern California (they are welcome to go), Utah, and Idaho.

Perhaps there is still a real need for military positioning in Hawaii, but I think we could do without it.  Modern technology allows a lot longer supply line than in previous decades.  However, again, logistics might not allow the US a presence in the South Pacific and Indian oceans without Hawaii.  But then, do we really have any right to have a presence there?

NightHawk