Talk:Hawaiian sovereignty movement

Hawaiian Nationalism

A search for "Hawaiian Nationalism" brings me to the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement's page. The difference between Hawaiian Nationalism and Hawaiian Sovereignty is likely the current dispute between OHA and other Hawaiian Sovereignty Groups. See Haole Nationalism, and OHA infighting,

Also it may be worth pointing out that the difference between these two political ideologies has roots in American diplomacy. For example this race-based distinction: a native Hawaiian (opposed to a non-native Hawaiian?) is any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778." (1921?) .

Quash-asia (talk) 08:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC) 

Merge?

I have mixed feelings on this proposal. In many ways, combining the articles would make things easier for all involved as they are so closely related.

However, these are separate issues as well. The Hawaiian sovereignty movement exists because of their feelings towards the Legal status of Hawaii. One is a legal issue while the other is a response to that legal issue.

Companion articles to the Legal status of Hawaii include the Legal status of Texas and the Legal status of Alaska. Using many of the same arguments, these articles also assert the controversial legality of American ownership of these states.

Would it be appropriate to merge the Legal status of Texas with the Republic of Texas (group)? This is probably comparable to the Hawaiian sovereignty movement for Texas. How about merging the Legal status of Alaska with the Alaskan Independence Party? That is probably comparable as an Alaskan sovereignty movement.

So I agree there is some wisdom in this proposal. However, I can see a valid argument that a sovereignty movement article is ultimately separate from a legal status article. LarryQ (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

While there is certainly significant overlap (due to multiple editors, some of whom are unclear on the concept of summary style), legal status and sovereignty movement topics are separate but related. My limited understanding is that legal status of X articles are supposed to examine the arguments by Y sovereignty movement, so there is an entirely different approach. Legal status articles have more of an outside perspective, whereas the movement articles focus on the group or groups that are active in the dispute. Legal status articles are usually a historical overview of the dispute, with or without arguments. The major difference between the two is that the legal status articles are supposed to take a broad view while the sovereignty articles should take a narrow approach. At this point, Legal status of Hawaii needs a major cleanup, and should be used summary style in this article. I'll see what I can do to help out. Viriditas (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if they recognize Obama as the incoming President?

Since a President is required by the Constitution to be a natural born citizen, and since Bam was born in Honolulu, I wonder if the Hawaiian sovereigntists recognize the president-elect status of Obama. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

DNFT. Viriditas (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

BJ Penn

could somebody post a citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.178.214 (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A fixation on ethnicity

I have been following this article and talk page for some time and while it has previously been my intention to remain silent, that is no longer a tenable position when there are certain elements to this article that are so impartial, so factually untrue, and so obviously propagandistic. In specific, the most apparent problem is the all too familiar, desperate fixation on ethnicity that seems to be the desired tool employed by US occupationists. As a disclaimer, I am fully aware that both the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009 and (of course) the Office of Hawaiian Affairs are explicitly ethnically-based.

My specific complaint re:ethnicity focuses on the following statement taken from the article:

"Among those who advocate for complete independence, proposals range from a reinstatement of a racial hereditary monarchy, to constitutional democracies with tiered citizenship based on race, to governments exclusively controlled only by members with the correct racial background."

The preceding statement describes three alternatives – all wildly inaccurate for a variety of reasons – though my chief complaint is the insistence that each "proposal" has at its core an ethnic quantum. To cursorily evaluate each of the three asserted "proposals":

". . . a reinstatement of a racial hereditary monarchy," I can only assume that this implies some sort of indignation that the sovereign of the Kingdom of Hawai'i would be a Hawaiian. If that is the case, then the author should be outraged that the UK or the Netherlands have a "European" racial hereditary monarchy, or that the emperors of Japan have been "racially" Japanese.

". . . to constitutional democracies with tiered citizenship based on race," It is difficult to argue with assertions conspicuously missing citations, but I would like to point out that the Kingdom of Hawai'i was recognized as a functioning constitutional democracy – with successive constitutions modeled on the contemporary constitution of the United Kingdom and not unlike the current constitutions of Canada or New Zealand - before the hostile occupation by the United States began.

On January 21, 1868, the Minister of the Interior for the Hawaiian Kingdom, His Excellency Ferdinand Hutchison, stated the criteria for Hawaiian nationality:

“In the judgment of His Majesty’s Government, no one acquires citizenship in this Kingdom unless he is born here, or born abroad of Hawaiian parents, (either native or naturalized) during their temporary absence from the kingdom, or unless having been the subject of another power, he becomes a subject of this kingdom by taking the oath of allegiance.”

The position of His Majesty’s Government was founded upon Hawaiian statute. Section III, Art. I, Chap. V of an Act to Organize the Executive Departments, 1845 and 1846, provided that:

“All persons born within the jurisdiction of this kingdom, whether of alien foreigners, of naturalized or of native parents, and all persons born abroad of a parent native of this kingdom, and afterwards coming to reside in this kingdom, shall be deemed to owe native allegiance to His Majesty. All such persons shall be amenable to the laws of this kingdom as native subjects. All persons born abroad of foreign parents, shall unless duly naturalized, as in this article pre-scribed, be deemed aliens, and treated as such, pursuant to the laws.”

There exists no mention of an ethnic quantum necessary for citizenship in the Kingdom of Hawai'i. While not monolithic, the mainstream movement advocating the recognition of Hawai'i as a sovereign state, wholly separate from the United States, generally recognizes the constitution of the Kingdom of Hawai'i as a valid document and as such would continue to use the same criteria for bestowing Hawaiian nationality.

". . . to governments exclusively controlled only by members with the correct racial background." Again, with no citation and nebulous language ("correct racial background"), one struggles to conclude the exact meaning of this statement, but I would assume that this is an admonition to readers who are not ethnically Hawaiian to be trepidatious at the idea of an apartheid government ruled only by ethnic Hawaiians. Despite continued best efforts at historical revisionism by Americans, we are the inheritors of a rich historical record which is easily accessible and is incontrovertible. Anyone even remotely familiar with the history of the Kingdom of Hawaii's government should be aware of the ethnic composition of the cabinet was diverse, and included many ethnic Europeans. Also, anyone who is today familiar with the sovereignty movement should know that it is in no way an "ethnic" issue; there are a diverse number of opinions supported by a diverse populace.

These unending assertions of a coming apartheid state or ethnic-warfare are patently outlandish, but they are the tool most often employed by American occupationists as part of a well-funded and organized public relations campaign because they are so effective at scaring the general population. These are the tactics of any tenth-rate attorney who realizes that they have a flimsy case; they know that they cannot argue the facts so they must resort to vilification and misrepresentation of the opposition. When one tries to engage in a civilized debate on the future of Hawai'i and even when one uses the historical record coming only from the United States government, a very clear picture emerges of a simple, hostile takeover of one nation by a much larger emerging superpower through armed aggression. The record from the US may speak for itself, but the debate nearly always goes in a similar direction; those in favor of the continued US occupation at some point realize that they aren't going to be able to convince through either refutation of the historical record or the contemporary law of the United States of International Law, so the must return to the tactics of misrepresentation in a desperate effort to distract and create fear.

For the sake of clarity, I will reiterate that both the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009 and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs imply an ethnic-quantum, and a great many within the sovereignty movement are vehemently opposed to both the Akaka Bill and OHA. The component of ethnic-quantum is justifiably worrisome, however, both the Akaka Bill and OHA are nothing more than subterfuge and a distraction from the correct course of action - the recognition of the continued sovereignty of the Kingdom of Hawaii.

With the foregoing having been said, this article is urgently in need of a drastic re-write to conform to Wikipedia's own rules of impartiality and, especially, verifiability. I will be the first to concede that fundamental questions about the future of Hawai'i remain unanswered and that important debates remain unresolved, but this article's sophistry and blatant use of propaganda do not help to create the environment for civilized debate, and ultimately do not engender much sympathy to the claims of the US' "virtuous" annexation of Hawai'i.

Moananui (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Moananui

Hi Moananui. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your comments. I am not very active here anymore and I just check in from time to time on articles I have an interest in. Somehow, long ago, I got involved in edit disputes around Hawaiian issues and these are some of the articles I still keep an eye on. Unfortunately, these articles are never liked by Hawaiian activists who see the articles as biased because they fail to acknowledge what they see is the obvious fact Hawaii is illegally occupied while pro-annexation people see this as a settled issue and get annoyed that the "fringe" position is being considered at all. This results in few liking the articles that develop by consensus. These are difficult articles to edit.

There may well be a fixation on race in this article. Some sovereignty groups are fixated on it of course. US law is also fixated on race. Like it or not, Hawaii is subject to US law and this is unlikely to change in either of our lifetimes. According to a 9-0 Supreme Court decision, decision of the U.S. Supreme Court of March 31, 2009, the Apology Resolution has no binding legal effect and the state of Hawaii has title to all ceded landed. This means the Supremes (liberal and conservative) have ruled that the US legally acquired Hawaii. Unless the International Court of Justice steps in, this now seems like a deadend legal issue. Hence, the fixation on race will be hard to end as things like the US Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009 and the US Office of Hawaiian Affairs are explicitly ethnically-based as you noted.

I would suggest making good faith efforts to edit this article. Are there ways you can make the fixation on race less prominent while still acknowleding that it is an issue? You don't need permission to do this. Just edit. If you are too point of view, you will likely get reverted. How can you edit the article to make it better while keeping it from sounding like propaganda for one side or the other? One sided editing works sometimes in the short term but rarely works long term. The Hawaiian sovereignty related articles are littered with editors from differing views who finally gave up and left in digust. This does not have to be you. Assume good faith from those who disagree with you. They have good reasons for what they believe too. You can work with some of them.

Good luck. Feel free to leave me a note if you want to talk about something. As I noted, I am not very active so be patient if it takes me a few days to get back to you. LarryQ (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Supporters / Opponents of Hawaiian sovereignty list

Just having a list of names isn't very encyclopedic. I believe it should be removed since there is no context.Mc kevins (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it makes sense to me if they have articles or citations. That is Wikipedia policy on notability. Ones that do not moved here:

Hawaiian sovereignty activists and advocates

• Keoni Agard
• Lynette Hiʻilani Cruz
• Scott Crawford [1]
• Mahealani Kahau, the chosen "Monarch" of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government.
• J. Kehaulani Kauanui, Ph.D.
• Poka Laenui, aka Hayden Burgess
• Rev. Charles Kauluwehi Maxwell Sr.
• Paul Christiaan Klieger (anthropologist, historian)
• Jon Osorio (scholar and musician)
• Rev. Kaleo Patterson
• B.J. Penn (fighter, not politician)
• Vicky Holt Takamine
• Dallas Keialiihooneiaina Mossman Vogeler

Opponents of Hawaiian sovereignty

• Earl Arakaki
• Robert M. Chapman
• Brian L. Clarke
• John Goemans (d. 2009)
• Patrick W Hanifin
• Richard O. Rowland
• Malia Zimmerman

W Nowicki (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Sovereignty opinions of Native Hawaiians?

Have there been any polls of Native Hawaiians (or of Hawaiian residents in general, with responses broken down by ethnic group) that show what percentage of Native Hawaiians favor independence, this or that version of sovereignty short of independence, and the status quo? This would be relevant information for the article. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If there was, what would determine who was a Native Hawaiian? I could see the carrying out of this task as disputable as its results. Quash-asia (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Seriously?

Hard to take this article too seriously with the bogus map from some alternative history pasted down towards the bottom of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.224.141 (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

US bias

The article is pro-US, and blatantly so. Most articles on independence movements are far less POV. The introduction is particularly baised, the statement that "the historical and legal basis for these claims is one of considerable dispute" is absurd. The US revolution and invasion was clearly illegal, and there can be no such thing as a retrospective legalisation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This article is weird. Angry bee (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Bishop Estate

The section on the Bishop Estate made it sound as though Charles Reed Bishop created Kamehameha Schools on his own. He was mandated as executor of Princess Pauahi's will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.192.10 (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Serious NPOV Issues

I take serious issue with statements like the following which can be found in the article:

"Legally, the land belonging to the Hawaiian Government in 1898 has passed to the U.S. Government and back to the State of Hawai'i. People alive now have a democratic right to decide by majority vote how government land should be used now. No one deserves more than equality"

This statement isn't a quotation from a legal ruling--it's clearly just a normative judgement reflecting someone's opinion. This article needs some cleaning up. CharlesMartel (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)CharlesMartel

Hawaii the Independent Nation

Hawaii, like Alaska, should be an independent nation, and will be eventually. Since the U.S. is an illegitimate nation, founded on lies and stolen land, it has no legitimate claim to Hawaii or Alaska. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cetj98168 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)