User talk:Laualoha/Arjuna's RFC Comment
Arjuna:Ouch! L, I'm sorry if you were offended, but I hope you will re-read what LarryQ wrote and see if you might have mis-interpreted what he said. I do find myself betwixt and between here. On the one hand, I could not agree more that what took place in 1893 was completely illegal, sleazy, and wrong in just about every way I can think of. On the other hand, the system of international law that now exists (well, kinda, in theory -- an ineffective U.N./ICJ system that allows itself to be run roughshod over by G.W. Bush notwithstanding) wasn't around then, so for lack of a better way to put it, it was legal to steal stuff back then. (this is where the page ended...)
In other words, 1. the recognition of the Provisional Government by other international actors and 2. the annexation of Hawaii by the U.S. made the de facto into de jure, for all intents and purposes. There simply was not a context in which to call that into question, other than a direct military challenge to the U.S. Do I approve of that? No. What I am saying is that I recognize that like it or not it's a reality, and that the lack of past or current national or international legal contexts for addressing the very legitimate historical injustice that was done is a real problem for asserting that the United States Government's sovereignty over Hawaii lacks any legal basis. It does have a legal basis, like it or not. International recognition of U.S. sovereignty is approval that carries legal weight. Maybe it shouldn't, but it does. This is what I meant in referring to "is" versus "ought". One can make a very persuasive moral case for why this should be questioned, but a moral case is not a legal one until and unless there is a venue for doing so. Look, I'm on your side (I'm speaking to L) in terms of setting the historical record straight in the other articles, and also in presenting the case why the lack of said legal context to address those wrongs is a legitimate POV and that should be one of the main points of this "Legal Status" article. I'm trying to help, honestly. But at the same time, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or venue for espousing a political viewpoint, however justified it may be. (Note that my objection to JK's POV edits is based on that same thing, that he's trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox.) I've also always been upfront with you and everyone else that despite the fact that I see the overthrow as having been the very definition of illegal, the passage of time and all the other factors have resulted in its being a "settled issue" (for now at least). In short, it's a fait accompli. If you're still offended by this, then I'm sorry about that but I have to call it as I see it. To Larry Q, sorry that you're feeling bitten: it's obviously something that a lot of people feel very passionate about, but I understand what you are saying and I think your perspective is well-taken but obviously misinterpreted. Your contributions are valuable and I hope you don't give up in frustration. (I didn't really want to get drawn into this whole issue either, and prefer to stick to the historical articles, but I'm trying to mediate between two radically opposing views (L v. JK) because well, someone's got to.) L, what we are saying (I think -- not trying to speak for LQ) is simply that the perspective you represent should absolutely be presented, but in accordance with Wikipedia policies, i.e. within the context of the international and domestic majority view. I promise you that I will advocate that your view is represented fairly. But all of this is also why the other articles are so important in presenting the facts of what happened fairly so people can draw their own conclusions, and perhaps, create a new context into which those grievances can be heard and addressed. I hope this makes sense, and that you don't see me as an enemy (that goes for both of you but mainly L. If you think I'm being unreasonable, just wait until JK pipes in [no offense JK]). Finally, pardon the ramble, but it's been a long week and I'm tired. I'm going to crosspost this on both your talk pages. Aloha, Arjuna 05:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Laualoha:Ok, some comments(I'll add to these when I get time):
1)I sorta disagree about it being legal to steal at that time. Yes, it was common practice and no, nobody generally did anything about it, but they were in clear breach of their own laws and treaties. Also, there was such a thing as the "Family of Nations" (a predecessor of the League of Nations), to which Hawai'i belonged (see Hawaii: A History From Polynesian Kingdom to American State, by Ralph S. Kuykendall& A. Grove Day, Prentice-Hall, NJ,1961. Pages 63-75. Sorry, still don't know how to cite non-online sources on WP). Not that it was completely a good thing (it came out of the rather imperialist Treaty of Westfalia), but it did mean that some international rules were in fact being broken. Not to mention the treaties that the U.S. had with Hawai'i, which were in effect at the time.
2)It is true that the general logic sort of goes,"if breaking treaties and stealing land is illegal, then the land base of the U.S. doesn't even exist. The US obviously exists, with lots of evidence to back this up, so therefore stealing and breaking treaties must somehow be legal (or at least internally reconcilable)." This is where some of the finer points of de facto vs. de jure come in, in my opinion. But I'm just focusing on Hawai'i for now.
3)Settled means done. Or at least decided. No international decision has ever been made on this; practically the only international action ever taken was the inclusion and then removal of Hawai'i on the UN list of NSGTs Eligible for decolonization. However, this was not an international judgement, it was a practical decision based on UN resources and priorities, and there was no debate whatsoever. There is nothing to prevent Hawai'i from being re-added to the list, but it is a much more lengthy process than being taken off, and it is being held up right now by many factors, including an internal (to Hawai'i) discussion on whether to ask the UN to treat the issue as one of "colonization" or one of "occupation", based on two different sets of legal arguments. In other words, it's complicated, but it is in motion. I think "settled" is an assumption that cannot be made at all; it's kinda "absence of evidence=evidence of absence"-ish.
4)Can you really say that my rather lengthy revamp proposal would not meet the weight criteria? Why?
5)you are definitely not an "enemy". Neither is "JK", for that matter, though I'm sure he'll be driving me crazy on this soon enough. More later, gotta go
Aloha, --Laualoha 12:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)