Close Topic Options

Politics - Hawai'ian Sovereignty and U.S. Imperial - Page 2

QUOTE

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.

This reminds me of Great Britain. They thought this same way until they spread thin and ended up giving up a lot of it. I have not seen the US trying to 'take' more territory, or at least not directly. I have seen the US truying to correct the mistakes of other countries, but never hear anything about it fixing its own affairs, for example this same situation in Hawaii. Maybe the US or the world have put an imaginary timeline as to say, 'It does not matter anymore'. Why do I say that? Think about it. If the US were to do what they did in Hawaii many years ago then there would be an uproar, UN would come in, etc. However, since it is over 100 years old it does not matter?  You may say well this was part of the 'shaping' of territories, but then is that really so - look at the Falkland Islands as an example. Okay enough rambbling on my part, I am just concerned with how 'bigger' countries seem to treat the little ones and then think 'its okay'.

Imperial US Sovereignty Hawaiian Politics

QUOTE

If the US were to do what they did in Hawaii many years ago then there would be an uproar, UN would come in, etc. However, since it is over 100 years old it does not matter? Â

I do think this is a part of history and not just US history.  It is how things were done in the past and it wasn't considered wrong by civilized nations.  Doesn't mean it wasn't wrong, but people didn't see it that way.  I believe we have changed as a society and now recognize that just because we are bigger doesn't mean we can come take what you have and make it ours.  

However, I do think we need to let history be and move forward.  I don't see what can realistically be done.  For example, the majority of western massachusets (actually most of the state) was at one time Indian lands.  Do we now, make all people that can't prove some genetic link to one of these tribes give up their land and leave.  I bought my house in 1991, should I give it back because an injustice was done 200 years ago?  

I think we learn from our mistakes but the ones that are ancient need to just be used as lessons because they can't be resolved fairly.  Some innocent party somewhere will be harmed and those to whom we are looking to resolve the issue weren't born nor their parents in most cases when the damage was done.

If there are people still living in Hawaii who were harmed, then I think they should be compensated, but that would be the limit for me.  Same as with Japanese Americans who were relocated during WWII.  Any still living, should receive some kind of compensation, but they can't be given back property that was lost that many years ago without unfairly harming another.  

The old saying is true, two wrongs don't make a right.

This is all just my opinion, of course.

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

Good points Tenaheff, I am a realist, so I know that it would be impossible to give everyone back land, but there are other ways, some you have mentioned, but the ones I would emphasize are these:

1. The original natives should be ensured places in government and leadership
2. Customs and traditions of the former society should be preserved
3. Traditional values of the natives should be preserved no matter how primative they may seem to the bigger nation
4. Questionable, but should they be paying tax, if so maybe only for certain things. For instance why should I pay tax for military expenses if I did not want them there / I did not ask for this 'protection' from another country / nation?

These are just off the top of my head at the moment.

Page 2 Imperial US Sovereignty Hawaiian Politics

JB, I agree with just about everything you say.  I don't agree with one point though.  

I do think they should pay taxes because they do get the benefits derived from those taxes.  If they are below poverty level then they don't have any tax liability, but otherwise they attend or send their children to the schools, they use the public transportation and the public streets, etc.  As far as not wanting the military presence, two things.  First, we don't get to pick and choose what we want our tax dollars to go towards, we get to vote for representatives who then decide how those tax dollars will be spent.  If we don't like it, we should vote for someone else.  It would be choas to allow people to say, I don't agree with this policy so I will not pay towards it.  If they don't contribute towards the military budget should we then put the people who didn't contribute to the protection on the front lines if we come under attack and say "these people chose no military so take them first, we won't defend them?"

Second, from what I read of those articles, there was a large segment of people living in Hawaii at the time of the initial "invasion" who did want us there.  So, I am not sure we can argue they didn't want the military.  Also, if we hadn't been there in 1942, it is likely they would have been invaded just like other pacific islands were and we would have had to bring a presence their for liberation anyway.

Also, I want to emphasize I only think any of this applies to people who were living when we invaded.  I question how many that might be.  As far as making them a state in 1958, that is not done autocratically.  I am pretty sure the population of Hawaii had a say in that.  This is why Puerto Rico remains not a state today.  

Imperial US Sovereignty Hawaiian Politics

QUOTE

I do think they should pay taxes because they do get the benefits derived from those taxes.

Didn't the Regan administration develop a plan/policy about the taxes for the native Indians? I do not think they have to pay for certain things like land. This is what I am referring to. Not paying specific taxes contributing to certain things rather than not paying taxes altogether.

QUOTE

Second, from what I read of those articles, there was a large segment of people living in Hawaii at the time of the initial "invasion" who did want us there.

Wow, that is very hard to say. I am not doubting your words, but I am wondering how they would know that in those times when communication was so limited. Does the history books written by the natives share that view?

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

QUOTE

Didn't the Regan administration develop a plan/policy about the taxes for the native Indians?

As far as I know this only applies to Indians living on recognized Indian Land Reservations.  Not to American Indians in general.  I read something about Homesteaders in Hawaii.  I don't know what this means specifically, but appears like some kind of arrangement made around 1921 for survivors from the time when the initial "invasion."  Perhaps people living on these Homesteads should get the same benefit.  I think that is what would happen if they were given the status of "Native American."  Farseer, feels that is a bad thing to happen for them.  I don't know, she probably knows more about this than I.  Actually, I am sure she does. Maybe an elaboration from her could tell us why it would be bad and what would be better that could realistically be accomplished without causing harm to other innocent people.

QUOTE

I am not doubting your words, but I am wondering how they would know that in those times when communication was so limited. Does the history books written by the natives share that view?

I have never read anything about this in my history books.  I am talking about what I read at the sites linked to by Farseer.  What I saw was there were people who asked us to come.  We didn't just arbitrarily decide to take over the Hawaiian Islands.  This was not the point the author was trying to make, but a careful study of the article clearly shows this to be a factor.  I understand some of these people were not what we think of as "natives," but they did live there at time.  Were some of them born there?  If they were then in my opinion that makes them a native, although I know that is not the politcally correct definition.

Also, certain treaties were signed throughout history.  The article says they were signed under duress.  That is the author's opinion.  How can we establish if it was or wasn't under duress now?  Some of it probably was, but not necessarily all of the agreements were signed under duress.  I believe the "queen" clearly signed at least one under duress, but some of her successors signed because they received a benefit from them.  At least based upon what I read in the article this appears to be the case.

Politics Hawai'ian Sovereignty U.S. Imperial - Page 2

QUOTE

By now Hawaii was a center of the whaling industry. Commercial sugar cane production began in Hawaii in 1835, and became especially important to the economy after whaling declined in the 1860s. Hawaii's prosperity made it desirable to both Americans and Europeans. Kamehameha III offered to place his islands under Queen Victoria's protection, but she refused for political reasons. In the 1840s America tried to annex Hawaii, but Kamehameha III thwarted this effort. Kamehameha III died in December 1854 and was succeeded by his nephew (and adopted son) Alexander, who reigned under the name Kamehameha IV. To prevent the annexation of Hawaii by the United States, he developed diplomatic and trade relations with other countries. He also tried to slow the influence of Christian missionaries. In 1874 Kalakaua went to Washington to negotiate a reciprocal trade treaty. Hawaiian sugar poured into America and American money poured into Hawaii. But the king tried to increase the power of the monarchy, which threatened the interests of foreign businessmen. In 1887 several hundred foreigners formed a secret group called the Hawaiian League. Many members also belonged to the Honolulu Rifles, a militia organization. They intimidated Kalakaua into accepting a new constitution, known as the Bayonet Constitution. It stripped the king of power, making him a figurehead, and permitted white foreigners to vote in elections. In 1889 a man named Robert Wilcox led an uprising against the new constitution. The uprising was put down by Cabinet troops, but Wilcox became a hero to native Hawaiians. At his trial for conspiracy, an all-Hawaiian jury found him not guilty. In January 1893, armed troops were sent ashore from a warship in Honolulu Harbor, and Liliokalani was forced to surrender her throne. A provisional government took control of Hawaii. The queen's heir, Princess Kaiulani, went to Washington to appeal for help. Her dignity impressed President Cleveland, who ordered an investigation of the revolution. The report he received convinced Cleveland that the queen should be returned to her throne. He made a speech to congress condemning the overthrow of the monarchy, calling it "a misuse of the name and power of the United States." Cleveland refused to annex Hawaii because the majority of Hawaiians were not in favor of it.

https://www.royalty.nu/America/Hawaii.html

Just a few responses here to previous comments/questions.

The people who wanted the U.S. in Hawai'i were foreigners -- U.S. and British businessmen with financial interests in sugar or coffee. (And yes, JB, the original spelling of Hawai'i has the apostrophe in it because there is a pause between the two last letters when spoken.  The Hawai'ian/English alphabet was developed by early missionaries.)  Owning a business in a country does not make you a native, or even a citizen, nor are children of foreigners born in that country -- unless the law of that land makes it so.

Second, politically I doubt that Hawai'i will ever be allowed to "secede from the Union" because the U.S. has too much invested there.  In the 1990's there were approximately 138,000 actual descendants of Hawai'ians left in the Ilsands, as opposed to over a million just 100 years before.  They don't have enough clout to change things.

Third, having the Hawai'ians classified as Native Americans and come under the jurisdiction and control of the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management would be a huge disaster.  Look at how Native Americans have been (mis)handled in the U.S.  There is currently a lawsuit against the DOI whose records have been subpoenaed -- but they can't come up with records of land assets that belonged to the Native Americans.

QUOTE

At present, the DOI is being sued by American Indians who allege that they were robbed of billions of dollars throughout the 20th century; that agency is responsible for holding Indian land assets in trust. Although they have been ordered twice by a federal court to come up with a full accounting of those assets, the DOI appears to have misplaced the records.https://www.hawaiiislandjournal.com/stories/8a03a.html

 And this is just ONE of many problems, as we know.

And what happens if the Hawai'ians are classified as Native Americans?  Would the U.S. try to "relocate" the Hawai'ians onto Reservations?  How would they go about doing that?  How much of Hawai'i would they determine as "belonging" to the Natives?  Are they not entitled to the entire islands?  The land was stolen to begin with.  How would the U.S. compensate a Native Hawai'ian for this?  Determine how much of the island that person's ancestors would have owned, and then pay them for it?  At what rate?

True, it would be horrible to have property that I owned suddenly yanked out of my hands and given to someone else because of something that happened before I was born.  But think of the Hawai'ians who are descendants of great Kings and Queens.  Where is the property that was stolen from them?  If that were your situation, would you ever stop trying to get it back?  Wouldn't your heart break to see what had become of the peaceable kingdom that was your birth right?  Would you settle for a little piece of land "granted back" to you by the thieves, who would then expect you to be grateful and be quiet?

Here are a couple of books on the subject: To Steal a Kingdom by Michael Dougherty relates in detail how the Hawaiian royal family lost control of their country.

The Hawaiian Kingdom 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation by Ralph Simpson Kuykendall. First volume in a series about Hawaiian history. (UK)

Hawaiian Kingdom 1854-1874, Twenty Critical Years by Ralph S. Kuykendall. The second volume of Kuykendall's series. (UK)

The Betrayal of Liliuokalani: Last Queen of Hawaii 1838-1917 by Helena G. Allen is a biography.


Roz

Politics Hawai'ian Sovereignty U.S. Imperial Politics Business Civil & History - Page 2

QUOTE

And what happens if the Hawai'ians are classified as Native Americans?  Would the U.S. try to "relocate" the Hawai'ians onto Reservations?  How would they go about doing that?  How much of Hawai'i would they determine as "belonging" to the Natives?  Are they not entitled to the entire islands?  The land was stolen to begin with.  How would the U.S. compensate a Native Hawai'ian for this?  Determine how much of the island that person's ancestors would have owned, and then pay them for it?  At what rate?

Great points Farseer. The land was stolen, definetly and the US should compensate this people with what they deserve...but I feel this will never happen. Maybe you all that live in the United States can answer me this question better since I have never seen a 'native north american' before. How the US and the people in general treat them? isn't me or they see them as 'less' just because they don't live like the majority of the population?.