Happy Hawaiian Statehood Day!
Matt Welch | August 19, 2005, 3:42pm
Or is it?? The Last State is holding some lukewarm celebrations in honor of that great day back in 1959, but there are no cheeseburgers in this paradise:
It's Hawaii's birthday today, but no residents or visitors would know that. There is no parade, no fireworks, no birthday cake, no candles, no political speeches, no additional red, white and blue flags flying high, and definitely no acknowledgement by Hawaii's political leaders that 46 years ago, Hawaii became America's 50th state. There is just a sad, embarrassing silence.
The complete void of recognition and celebration of Hawaii's union with America wasn't always so in the islands -- there was once tremendous pride in Statehood Day, now referred to as "Admissions Day."
So sayeth the glum patriots over at The Hawaii Reporter. Why so blue? Because "sovereignty," in the form of a bill that has passed the committee stage and is headed to the Senate floor, is potentially just around the corner. And the bill's author, Democratic Senator Daniel Kahikina Akaka, is all over the islands' newspapers backtracking from his Tuesday statements on NPR that the Akaka Bill "could" be a Trojan Horse leading to Hawaiian Independence. Rush Limbaugh is all over this story like poi on finger, but the bill wouldn't be where it was if it weren't for the contributions of Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, Arizona Sen. John McCain, and in fact the 2004 Republican Party Platform.
I'll have more on this Monday, but in the meantime, I'll throw this chum out to you sharks: Assuming there was strong popular support -- which may very well be an incorrect assumption, but just for the sake of the exercise -- why shouldn't the islands secede? Isn't it finer to be a 49er?
Pro-independence blog here, anti-indy sentiment here. Grover Cleveland's anti-imperialism here.
UPDATE: Commenters hashed through the pros and cons a year ago, too.
NoStar | August 19, 2005, 8:41pm | #
for those of you who hate song lyrics in your Hit&Run, go shove a waheenie up your Haoulie.
Lets Talk Dirty in Hawaiian
© John Prine
Well, I packed my bags and bought myself a ticket
For the land of the tall palm tree
Aloha Old Milwaukee, Hello Waikiki
I just stepped down from the airplane
When I heard her say,
"Waka waka nuka licka, waka waka nuka licka
Would you like a lei? Eh?"
Chorus
Let's talk dirty in Hawaiian
Whisper in my ear
Kicka pooka mok a wa wahini
Are the words I long to hear
Lay your coconut on my tiki
What the hecka mooka mooka dear
Let's talk dirty in Hawaiian
Say the words I long to hear
It's a ukulele Honolulu sunset
Listen to the grass skirts sway
Drinking rum from a pineapple
Out on Honolulu Bay
The steel guitars all playing
While she's talking with her hands
Gimme gimme oka doka make a wish and wanta polka
Words I understand Hey!
Repeat Chorus
Well, I boughta lota junka with my moolah
And sent it to the folks back home
I never had the chance to dance the hula
Well, I guess I should have known
When you start talking to the sweet wahini
Walking in the pale moonlight
Ohka noka whatta setta knocka-rocka-sis-boom-boccas
Hope I said it right Oh!
Repeat Chorus
Let's talk dirty in Hawaiian
Say the words I long to hear
spoken: Aloha
scott crawford | August 19, 2005, 9:20pm | #
First the "anti-indy" link in the article is incorrect. The institute only seeks to educate people as to the possible consequences of the bill.
Aha, so, sorta like Akaka on NPR, Don leaves open the possibility that the Grassroot Institute might not be anti-independence? Maybe neutral, or even supportive? That's interesting news ;-)
After all it is a libertarian organization, and I have always thought that one could make a reasonable liberatian argument in favor of independence, especially the more one knows about the history.
Also, I should note that GRIH poll at the "incorrect assumption" link is seriously flawed, both in its method and interpretation. See
my post here for analysis.
Also note that while many who support the Akaka bill do actually support independence, at the same time some of the most vocal voices
against the Akaka bill, completely separate from the Grassroot Institute, are folks who strongly support independence, and see the bill as an attempt to actually undermine independence, legitimize the American presence in Hawaii, and finally settle claims. Then there are also those who support the Akaka bill but do not support independence. So taking sentiment regarding the Akaka bill and applying it to independence neglects the more subtle dynamics at work in the public opinions of Hawaii's residents. In fact, no poll has really looked at the sentiment for independence, so it is pretty much speculation. Purely based on speculation and my anecdotal observations, I wouldn't assert that it is a majority, but I do think the level of support for independence, and the degree to which it is openly and regularly debated in the opinion pages of Hawaii's papers and elsewhere in our communities, would probably surprise most folks who are not familiar with the issue.
But anyway, if you really want to try to understand the issues, it is important to understand that the Akaka bill and independence are not at all the same, despite the tendency to lump them all together in the fears expressed by Limbaugh and others who are largely ignorant of the real history and issues.
Tane | August 19, 2005, 9:52pm | #
I am not amazed that people have different perceptions on this topic. It relies on knowing the true facts that escape most; especially in history revised books used to teach the children and the corporate media that censors and selects what they want you to know.
Hawaii is just a passing thought to most without consideration. Status quo, jobs, McDonald's type operation, Starbucks, and what's on TV deems it so. Who cares? Just don't make waves; the less one knows, the better. Regardless of the facts and truth no one cares. What the US government does in one's name - who cares?
What US Americans did in your name, who cares? Not one's problem, right? Leave your country for the corporations to rule and strip your freedoms away, just don't burst one's bubble and take away the comforts one is accustomed to, correct? This is about one's belief in the sales and marketing schemes, religious beliefs, self-gratification, and sustenance which requires blind patriotism.
It would be irrelevant how Hawaii became a recognized friendly, neutral, independent nation and part of the the Family of Nations, forerunner of the League of Nations, and the UN. What would be relevant is the USA's involvement and relations with the Hawaii Kingdom.
As documented, treaties between the two countries began in 1826. US covert and overt actions began at such time to the present. The endeavor was to destabilize Hawai'i's government for a takeover in order to establish dominion over the Pacific area. Key players in the US invasion of Hawaii were US Americans residing in Hawaii and influential men on Capitol Hill in Washington.
They created the "fake revolution" that ultimately resulted in the US invasion, takeover, and the ongoing unlawful occupation of Hawai'i.
Of the Hawaii Nationals, 84.4% were Kanaka Maoli and 15.6% were of foreign ethnicity. This comprised 50.1 of the residents of Hawaii. Like Texas, the USA allowed it's citizens to migrate to the islands. In the 1890 census, it also showed 49.9% were of foreign citizenship, mostly US Americans. This set up precluded the USA takeover.
At the time of the invasion, only a handful was aware of what transpired. US Minister Stevens proclaimed recognition of the US revolutionaries as the legitimate government without them securing government buildings and the police station. This US Provisional Government was backed by the US military which stayed to insure its position in Honolulu.
In 1897, the Ku'e Petitions overwhelmingly signed by the Hawai'i Nationals protested the US takeover and rebuked the annexation to the US. That was the people's plebiscite or referendum. They did not support the US-puppet Provisional Government nor the farcical Republic of Hawaii.
The hoax continued with the US annexation against the people's wishes with the US internal resolution to annex the islands. After the Queen's death, the assimilation attempt continued and the Stockholm Syndrome took hold.
The Statehood Act was voted upon in the islands. Of the registered voters, some 37% voted, which included the US military and their dependents. Many Hawaiians were barred from voting. The campaign of showing that all the people expressly wanted US statehood was pushed a year before NGO was knowingly going to be passed in the UN.
Throughout the following years, attacks on the Hawaiian entitlements expressed in the Statehood Organic Act, was increasing to support the genocide and ethnocide of the Native Hawaiians. Our voices have been suppressed, trivialized, and ridiculed. The myth lives on, but who cares, right?
`Ehu Kekahu Cardwell | August 20, 2005, 1:13am | #
WHO WINS IN A FREE AND INDEPENDENT HAWAI'I ? - EVERYONE !
One of the biggest lies perpetuated today is that when Hawai`i achieves nationhood once again it will be at the expense of everyone else.
But no one will be kicked out; their businesses seized or their homes and property confiscated.
Instead, everyone, Hawaiians and all others, will be citizens of the sovereign and independent Nation of Hawai`i. The Hawaiian Nation included people of many ethnic backgrounds that were loyal citizens before the illegal overthrow and it will be so again.
The truth is a sovereign Hawaiian nation will need the contributions and talents of all of its citizens to remain viable in the world. Hawaiians would be no better than the very supremacists that overthrew and occupied them were they to divide people by race.
Hawaiians have always been inclusive, not exclusive.
How would this be accomplished politically given a civil war resulted the last time a state tried to leave the US?
Unlike the southern US states, the Kingdom of Hawai`i and its citizens never agreed to become part of the United States in the first place. Therefore a move for Hawai`i to secede from the US would be both unnecessary and inappropriate.
Much like removing the top coat of paint to reveal the one underneath, the US Congress, after consultation between Hawaiians and the US at the level of state to state, could simply enact a US federal law that dissolves the entity known as the "state government" in Hawai`i.
What would be left in its place is what has existed all along anyway without interruption – the Nation of Hawai`i.
Only at that point, would it be appropriate for the citizens of Hawai`i to decide their future as it relates to a relationship with the United States.
Those possibilities would include –
Full Independence - Joining once again the family of nations in the world.
Free Association – Much like Palau and the Federated States of Micronesia.
Integration with the US – Becoming a state again or a tribe of the US under federal recognition.
Did you know that when Ronald Reagan was president, one of the most conservative US presidents in recent times, his administration actually granted the Marshall Islands independence in 1986, which then lead to a free association relationship with the US?
Precedent for Hawaiian independence exists right now within US law as outlined above.
There are no laws that exist today within the US to prevent the US federal government from dissolving a state government. It is only fear and ignorance that holds the status quo in place.
Visit www.FreeHawaii.Info
Tane | August 20, 2005, 5:39am | #
Many people seem to let this go over their heads and maintain frivolous arguments why Hawaii should keep the US as its lord and master.
Hawaii was known as a progressive, modern nation. While the USA, a WASP racist society, still had slavery in their country; ours had it outlawed at the onset. Any slave entering the Kingdom's territory was automatically free and considered a human being and not a possession or piece of property.
What is at issue here is the US relations with another nation equal in status. As usual, the USA bends or reneges on the international rules to suit its whims. The world now views the USA as a government believing they are above the law.
Many US Americans exude false pride in their country, believing that they can do no wrong. This arrogance has been detrimental in the way they exercise justice and freedom and their perception of it. Living in a bubble prevents one to see the whole picture.
As much as you profess to love your country, you must concede others love theirs with as much passion also. For you to voice disparaging remarks about my country and its people; demonstrate your disdain, indifference, and apathy. Shame on you.
I'm sure if the table was turned; you scream the loudest, using the venom you now possess. We say, waha nui - all mouth. You demonstrate no confidence of your worth. Realistically, no one needs to agree with your belief that the US is the alpha and omega in this world.
Your pro-imperialism and ideals of manifest destiny is archaic at best. We do not rely on it for our survival nor do we believe in it as you do.
We just want your country, who stole ours in your name, to return it to the rightful owners and that is to the Hawaii Nationals. Like all criminals, there is a price to pay. The shame and dishonor is on your country which needs to do the right thing for a change.
Historically, we never hated the US American people; many are wonderful people. We hated the political snollygosters who did shameful things in your name and represented your country.
You wouldn't be losing anything; but you would be gaining a friend.
tomWright | August 20, 2005, 11:04am | #
All you secessionist talking folks:
Yes, it can happen, and may in the next 40 years, though I think it more likely beyond that.
All that is needed is a peaceful example of a secession of breakup that the US population can relate to. The breakup of the USSR doesn't count, and wasn't that peaceful in any case, though it could have been hideously worse.
I think Canada will provide that example. their has been a lot of grumbling up there for decades, and not just from the Quebecois. The western provinces are none to happy either.
If/When Canada breaks up, look for a serious secessionist movement here to start immediately, and be successful in 20 years or less after that.
Who will secede? I think at this point, good bets would be one or more of: The West Coast, Texas and possibly the southeast, ending up with at least 4-5 independent political jurisdictions.
New England, (Northeast of NY), and New Netherland, (NY south to Del), are too intertwined and politically Dependant to break apart, though Vermonters are a bit of a wild card. The Midwest, plains and high desert areas are up for grabs.
Tom
(Opinions are like lower bodily orifices. They should never be shared with anyone that does not request it. Pardon my rudeness)
Grant Jones | August 20, 2005, 7:23pm | #
Point taken Scott regarding the fact that the Hawaiian Monarchy was multiethnic, although the Crown remained in ethnic Hawaiian hands. Not that I consider Monarchy a legitimate form of government.
But, if a future independant Hawaiian polity will be "inclusive" then I don't see the point. Look at our state government, the most corrupt in the Union. Giving those gangsters the power to print money and grant monopolies to their cronies is too scary to think about. The only thing holding them within some bounds is fear of the Federal Pen. I'm assuming in the future Hawaii you envision all now living here will have rights as citizens and be able to vote, run for office, hold property, etc. Or if you mean that only those born in Hawaii would be citizens and the rest of us would have to be natualized, I don't think that won't change much on who the electorate sends to office.
Independence would be an economic disaster for these Islands. Has anyone done a study of what would happen if Hawaii was no longer a part of the American economy? The basic reality is that Matson liners arrive in Honolulu full and leave empty. The overthrow had as much to do with the McKinley Tariff as with the Constitutional crisis. Frankly, I think there are only a handfull of states that could go it alone and Hawaii isn't one of them, unless we start electing honest people to office who respect private property and are not completely hostile to business.
I'm not saying might makes right. There have been many elections between the Overthrow, Statehood and today. Do you doubt the outcome of a referendum held to vote on "Statehood or Independence" where all residents of Hawaii could vote? Let's have a Con-Con and hash out these issues. Notice supporters of Akaka don't want a debate. And they won't wait and hold a Con-Con to find out what the people think.
On this perhaps we can agree, the Akaka Bill is a power grap by OHA and the Bishop Estates. As a liberal, I would like to see the land held by OHA privatized. Give ethnic Hawaiians their long promised Kuleanas as individuals held fee simple. The Alii will never do this. They want to keep the people on land they can never own as Makaainana.
I'm not sure the Marines where responsible for the Overthrow. I don't think the Household Troops had a prayer against the Honolulu Rifles. If the Marines stopped a battle from occurring, then they saved lives whose loss would not have altered the outcome. I think the Crown totally disarming over a period of several decades and depending on the foreign powers to protect the Monarchy was foolish. All governments must retain the ability to protect themselves from internal coups or they will not be long for this world. This is not saying "might makes right," it is just the political reality.
scott crawford | August 20, 2005, 9:15pm | #
Grant, it is a long discussion to actually get into the pros and cons of independence, and I don't assert that it would necessarily or automatically improve things. I do think there are a range of economic benefits that could come from independence. At this point, though, I just seek to establish that there is at least a reasonable basis for a legal argument for it being possible, and I think that as we look toward constructive solutions for the future of the islands, we are well served if we have the full range of options to consider, rather than only being limited within federal law, and at least be willing to openly debate what independence might look like.
I think you are on pretty shaky ground arguing that a democratic constitutional monarchy is not a legitimate form of government! Tell that to the UK and all its commonwealth countries, Spain, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Japan, Belgium, Thailand and the 40 or so other constitutional monarchies in the world today.
Secretary of State Gresham and President Cleveland were quite clear at the time, based on the exhaustive investigation by Blount, that the efforts of the traitors would have failed due to lack of popular support and insufficient arms, that the provisional government owed its existence to the presence of U.S. troops, and that the PG was no more than an oligarchy or executive council. Please read the excerpts I have posted at this page, and preferably the entire statements that they are taken from:
http://www.hawaiiankingdom.info/C1126750129/E20050721103949/index.html
I don't think we can define absolutely at this point who would be a citizen and who would have to apply for naturalization, but unlike what the U.S. tried to do to Hawaii nationals, we couldn't just impose Hawaiian citizenship on Americans living in Hawaii. But I think that a very large portion of the population would probably want to apply for naturalization if Hawaii was independent and they were able to. My point is just that it will not be limited to Native Hawaiians, and citizenry would probably end up largely reflecting the current population overall.
I don't really know what the vote would be if held today, statehood vs. independence, but first that question isn't entirely relevant because from a legal perspective, if the Hawaiian kingdom has had a continuous existence under prolonged occupation, that is a fact of law that we have to deal with, and not a matter of popular opinion. Second, those who transmigrate during an occupation don't necessarily have a right to stop the nationals who are occupied from pursuing the effort to regain the effectiveness of their government. Third, there are many causes that were once in the minority that eventually win popular support, and being in the minority does not necessarily reflect whether something is right or just or good. I will continue to push for at least having an open debate about independence, which is happening now more than ever, and I believe that over time and with real information and honest discussion the support will only continue to grow.
There are those on the independence side, who oppose the Akaka bill, who are proposing a con-con, including Bumpy Kanahele.
Finally, folks might be interested in seeing this article at the Maui News about the Statehood "celebration" event here yesterday, where the Hawaiian flag flew upside down and more people sang the Hawaiian national anthem than the American one. Not exactly what Malia Z was hoping for, I doubt.
http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=11658
Tane | August 21, 2005, 4:23am | #
Interesting comments; mostly spoken from within the US box of assimilation. The "what ifs" seem irrelevant at this moment as if one is looking for guarantees for changes. All these concerns as to the complexion of the Hawaii Nation would be inconsequential to outsiders since it's an internal decision.
Remember the US is responsible for its actions and because of the belligerent occupation, the US is subject to the international laws prescribed for its own protection and that of the occupied. If the US disregards the guidelines; than it becomes liable and the rammifications would be affecting all. The US citizens unknowingly were permitted to violate these rules through their government's fraud and deceit, while the governemnt's action in the name of its citizens makes it liable to its citizens as well. If those who choose not to give up their citizenship and must relocate, then the US government is liable to compensate its citizens for its illicit acts, not Hawaii.
Most that object to Hawaii's restoration of its independence feel that the US WASP society they come from is more acceptable than the non-WASP society. This ethnocentrism of the US WASP society upon others is the continuous dogma of manifest destiny. You all use arguments using that form of mentality. It seems like a US Americanized point of view.
Some of the comments I've listened to shows that many really do not know much of Hawaiian history except for the revised one expressed in your books written by US Americans. It would be too lengthy to rebuff all the misinformation you were led to believe. Like Scott says, don't confuse the (US) Akaka-Stevens Bill with the Hawaiian independence issues.
Mr. Jones, don't kid yourself about the US involvement in the takeover. Congressman, Wm. Springer, acknowledged that the "overthrow" could not last for more than an hour without the intervention of the US military. There are documented facts that support the US complicity in the invasion of Hawaii and the reasons for it.
It is wise to know that under the Kingdom, the rights of tenants were protected by law and there was no one that was homeless. Today, under the US rule, we have many of our citizens homeless and many arrested for having no place to go. You'll find it interesting that today and for decades, US States on the mainland send their derelicts and homeless to Hawaii and we can't send them back.
The US military have been dumping toxic wastes and hazardous materials on our islands. They have also used DU which has affected our community whereby many now suffer from leukemia and cancer, which is in the rise. Of the US Army's land use, 70% are the "ceded" lands they received for a dollar a year; displacing many people who had use of the land.
We have no say in the land use nor control of our island assets. This is to name just a few of the derelict practices spawned by your country.
Many of you speak as if you have ownership of our territory and we should kowtow to your whims that suit you. Your concern is appreciated but unnecessary. We had a viable government and it's constitution and laws are still applicable.
It doesn't take much to update and ratify. It's not like we are creating something novel and unfamiliar to us.
To Mr. Walsh, You are right to an extent. The attitude of the islanders were a reflection and reaction to their treatment by the US military and US Americans since the US-belligerent occupation. The resentment increased with the Massey Case and it's US version of justice. Of course, most of the Military were not what you would call cream of the crop of the US or matured people. They came from small little towns, the poor districts, and racists backgrounds. For the most part they were very disrespectful to the community they were based in. They weren't meant to be US ambassadors. I suppose military towns have experienced some of the treatment I expressed.
Most reactionaries came from foreign Asian countries with their hang ups about US Americans and you generally passed them off as being Hawaiians. Bottomline is to show respect to one another. Our house is always open to strangers and you would be most welcomed; unfortunately, most that live here are groomed as US Americans.
Making us a USA dependency is nothing new, it was orchestrated that way. It doesn't mean we are incapable of surviving. The choice is for the Hawaii Nationals and no one else's.
Yes, we are looking for justice and freedom through the deoccupation of the US. We love our country just as much as you love yours.
