Talk:Hawaiian sovereignty movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Hawaiʻi, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Hawaiʻi. Please participate by editing the article Hawaiian sovereignty movement, or visit the project page for more details.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. To add the summary, please edit this article's ratings summary page.
WikiProject Hawaii priority open tasks:


Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:


Note: Messages to IslandGyrl on the topic rather than the article are better posted on her talk page here. IslandGyrl 21:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Request for comment / Dispute resolution

IslandGyrl feels that discussions between her and JereKrischel have reached a point where the involvement and commentary of more editors would be helpful and constructive. She would like to see more people participate in expanding Wikipedia coverage of the Hawaiian sovereignty area in a way that does not so much take sides but is more exemplary of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. --IslandGyrl 16:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The role of the US government to the overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy is being questioned. Many cite the Apology Resolution as proof but this legislation is being challenged as to its accuracy.

Slade Gorton and Hank Brown, American Senators who voted against the Apology Resolution, have described it as being a piece of historical revisionism. They wrote, "The Apology Resolution distorted historical truths. It falsely claimed that the U.S. participated in the wrongful overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani in 1893. The U.S. remained strictly neutral. It provided neither arms, nor economic assistance, nor diplomatic support to a band of Hawaiian insurgents, who prevailed without firing a single shot, largely because neither the Native Hawaiian numerical majority nor the queen's own government resisted the end of the Hawaiian Kingdom." The full article can be found be found here:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007117

A rebuttal of the points claimed in this law can be found here:

http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/AkakaHawaiiDividedFeinJune2005.pdf

As noted, this is still being very much disputed. Hence, a non-biased article that does not make alleged historical claims benefits all and supports the neutrality of Wikipedia. 172.165.51.80 02:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requested reference found

IslandGyrl, I was able to find a master's thesis with Lili Kala Dorton's name.

LEGENDARY TRADITION OF KAMAPUA'A, THE HAWAIIAN PIG-GOD / BY LILI KALA DORTON. THESIS (M.A.)--UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII, 1982. PHOTOCOPY. (HONOLULU ; S.N., 1982)by DORTON, LILIKALA L. DORTON 1982 1982

  1. Subjects Legends -- Hawaii.
  2. SWINE (IN RELIGION, FOLKLORE, ETC.)-HAWAII
  3. Kamapua'a (Hawaiian deity)

Description: 260P

Hawaii State Library R -- Hawaiian & Pacific H 398.2 D Non Circulating Add Copy to MyList

I will make the change from Lily to LiliKala. --JereKrischel

[edit] Please stop making POV-pushing edits

Sorry, I feel this material is simply out of place in the Preview. Editors are requested to re-read the Wikipedia policy on neutrality, particularly the section "Friendly and sympathetic tone" where it says "for example, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section." Inserting this material goes that one better—have the Queen appear to refute pro-independence views before they've even been stated? WP policy also requests we bear in mind that as editors we are called upon to characterize the dispute—not re-fight it. Mahalo.

Liliʻuokalani's response to her overthrow changed over the years.  
Although at first she worked to effect a counter-revolution, eventually she 
expressed satisfaction about the course Hawaii had taken.

:The best thing for [Native Hawaiians] that could have happened was to 
belong to the United States. - written in the 1903 autobiography of Senator 
George Hoar (R. Mass.), quoting Liliʻuokalani

:Tho' for a moment it [the overthrow] cost me a pang of pain for my people 
it was only momentary, for the present has a hope for the future of my people. 
- former Queen Liliʻuokalani in her diary, Sunday, September 2, 1900

Although there was some controversy as to the accuracy of the second quote, 
research done by DeSoto Brown of the Honolulu Weekly, who was originally 
doubtful, was able to prove it's authenticity.  A further discussion of the two 
articles written by DeSoto Brown have been discussed on the 
Honolulu Advertiser discussion boards. --IslandGyrl 22:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


IslandGyrl, where on the page would this information be appropriate? I struggled trying to think of a good place to put it...do you have any suggestions? I think it's just as relevant as the apology information, which seems to imply a certain characterization of history. --JereKrischel

First, reiterating the importance of Wikipedia neutrality policy, my plea would be for self-restraint and more effort to conform to encyclopedic standards. WP works best when editors avoid making unbalanced edits that either leave an article "spoiled " by a badly integrated chunk of writing or cause work for other editors to clean up.

JereKrischel, may I address some concerns to you directly? You've done a good job stimulating coverage of the anti-Hawaiian-sovereignty activists and arguments. Some contributions, however, unnecessarily replicate Dr Conklin's or Mr Twigg-Smith's argumentation in Wikipedia or otherwise push links to related material into the foreground. Please avoid this. Except for the articles about the figures themselves and their advocacy activities, it should almost always suffice just to have links to sites with their material in the "References" or "External links" section. It is POV to employ them as if they were neutral authorities when they have long since made themselves major players in the controversy.

Aloha, IslandGyrl, I would be more than happy to address any concerns you have. You've been an excellent guide through this whole wikipedia thing! --JereKrischel

I would now propose expanding the Kenneth R. Conklin and Thurston Twigg-Smith articles with a discussion of their views, and splitting all the "anti" material here off to create a symmetrical article "Hawaiian sovereignty opponents" cross-linked with this one. Let this article be about pro Hawaiian sovereignty phenomena, as its name suggests; everything in this article should give the reader more information about advocates.

I'm not sure if I entirely agree with your proposal here...maybe if we had a "Hawaiian Sovereignty" parent page that linked to a "Hawaiian Sovreignty Advocates" and "Hawaiian Sovereignty Opponents" pages, that cross-referenced each other, that would be more equitable...but even that seems to be a virtual throwing up of hands and giving up at making a neutral article, and instead giving us permission to place POV pushes here, as long as they stay in their place.
The assumption that "Hawaiian Sovereignty" == "Advocates" I think is the most objectionable to me though. It would be equivalent to having a page on "U.S. Pro Life Movement" with another page on "U.S. Pro Life Opponents"...someone else may push the other POV by having "U.S. Abortion Rights Movement" and "U.S. Abortion Rights Opponents". --JereKrischel
In a sense, WP policy does indeed represent a "virtual throwing up of hands"—if by that you mean that in conflict situations we are not to try to play the arbiters of what is fact. Directly quoting Wikipedia policy:
The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and—this party is mistaken (see second example below)—that if a claim is factual, it is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact. In such a dispute, the first party needs to re-read the Neutral Point of View policy. Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral.
Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties.
This is not the same as condoning POV pushes. We are enjoined to label the source of assertions explicitly and as specifically as possible. A debatable assertion that "X is the case" (POV) is not at all the same as a verifiable assertion that "ABC representing such-and-such a perspective says X is the case" (NPOV). As for the notion of a neutral article, I think we must accept that in the area of Hawaiian sovereignty—ultimately a case of competing nationalisms—insofar as there is little agreement as to what is fact, a neutral article by Wikipedia's definition must of necessity confine itself to informing the reader of who asserts what. --IslandGyrl 04:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Ah, you have further educated me. Thank you. From what I'm reading, even if the fact is that the Protocols of Elders of Zion was a work of fiction, a wikipedia article on some anti-Zionist movement should not contain any reference to that fact which is disturbing to the inherent POV of the article. Although I would wonder if the sovereignty advocates actually do dispute the fact of the queen's change of heart...in any case you are obviously right that the bold statement of such a fact can be seen as being against their POV. Perhaps there is some way to word that fact so that it seems less offensive and more sympathetic? We can't attribute that fact to anyone except the queen and the senator she talked to, since once source was directly from her own diary and the other from the senator's autobiography...but maybe we can place some context around it that "softens" the blow? I would be interested to hear your suggestions on that. --JereKrischel
Wikipedia guidelines deal extensively with the case of handling racist opinion under NPOV. I have no interest in trading sarcasm; this is not a blog; please desist. We should be working on the articles and trying to make it attractive for other editors to participate in expanding coverage of this topic. A two-person head-to-head dynamic usually ends up wasting editor energy and rarely does article quality much good. --IslandGyrl 16:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry if what I wrote seemed sarcastic. I was being sincere. I do greatly appreciate your bringing up of the wikipedia policy on the bold statement of fact - I did not read that before, and did not previously understand that POV. You taught me something useful, and I thank you, with no sarcasm intended. I will endeavor to read more of the wikipedia guidelines myself, but when I stray, it is good to have someone expose my fault.
On that topic, did you see the edit I made to the "bold statement of fact" of the queen's change of heart? Did that help make things more NPOV? I really am trying here to be a good wikipedian - your guidance is appreciated and no doubt necessary. --JereKrischel

Does the Lili‘uokalani quote tell the reader more about the pro side? No; it's a point raised by opponents; so in the absence of anything illuminating the full context—what role the point plays in the whole discussion, who stresses this theme and who doesn't, and what equally important topics are also out there—it doesn't belong. The article on the Irish Catholic Sinn Féin does not, after all, devote a third of its space to the Ulster Protestant DUP's views; the DUP rates its own article.

I think maybe the problem here is that an artificial separation of facts and opinions may be occuring. I think maybe what we should discuss is Lili‘uokalani's reactions, starting from her abdication under duress, her attempt at a counter-coup, and her final acceptance. By censoring ourselves I think we do a disfavor to those interested in learning about the topic.
Insofar as the Catholic/Protestant example, I think perhaps if the articles were titled "Irish Independence Movement" and "Irish Independence Movement Opponents" it would be POV pushing. As it is, we identify the group, and talk about their agenda there. It would be equivalent to having each of the sovereignty movmenent parties with their own articles (perhaps a good idea?), and the anti-sovereignty movement parties with their own articles (Aloha For All, et al.). --JereKrischel
Well-rounded material on Queen Lili‘uokalani belongs in the article about her. Selecting "choice" facts for insertion here is suspect. Nothing to do with censorship; just an acknowledgement that all of us have our biases, and selectivity is one way those biases express themselves.
The more articles on the more parties, the merrier, provided they have substance and are encyclopedic, not puff pieces. An article about XYZ is not the same as an article merely echoing XYZ's official PR statements about itself. --IslandGyrl 04:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like you're arguing at cross purposes here. An article about XYZ (Hawaiian Sovereignty) is not the same as an article echoing XYZ's (Hawaiian Sovereignty's) official PR statements. Shouldn't we strive for a Hawaiian Sovereignty article which is about the issue, and not assume the POV of the article should be slanted in one direction or another?
You are right that well-rounded material on the queen belongs in her article, but in regards to the sovereignty movement, aren't there a few "choice" facts that do belong naturally in the article? The whole sovereignty issue revolves directly around her overthrow in 1893, and we can't minimize her role.
I guess the selectivity bias goes both ways, and the original article with it's clear bias against those who held anti-sovereignty positions has been improved with the last couple of dozen edits. But there is a balance here, and I acknowledge it may be swinging past the midline.
What do you think about my proposal to have 3 pages, "Hawaiian Sovereignty Issues", and under that "Hawaiian Sovereignty Advocates" and "Hawaiian Sovereignty Opposition"? We can limit the top level to simply stating some of the basic undisputed history around 1893 (may be a challenge), and then link to the other pages. When there is some argument between the two lower pages, they can reference each other. For example, the advocate page may have a section which describes sympathetically the version of history they ascribe to, but at the bottom of that section have a link to the opposition page. Same with the opposition page. An assertion on either page can be linked to the opposing material, but we won't clutter up one page with both sides. Equal treatment, so although each article is clearly around a certain POV, we allow readers to navigate between the two if they choose.
Does that sound equitable? --JereKrischel
In an ideal universe it might work, but we are only two editors and look at the kerfuffle we already have. I thus doubt that a consensus on the content of "Hawaiian sovereignty issues" could be achieved in any time short enough to be useful. Any basic undisputed history, such as can be agreed on, already has a place in the article History of Hawaii (although there's no reason to object if the same material were precisely replicated in a Hawaiian sovereignty article). The various voices loosely categorised as the sovereignty movement actually reflect a multitude of different perspectives, and the issues group X considers crucial are not necessarily same as those important to group Y. For instance, at the moment OHA is lobbying heavily for the Akaka Bill while Ms Mililani Trask and Mssrs Blaisdell, Laenui, and Sai all oppose it (as do Aloha for All and Grassroot Institute, for different reasons obviously). But a reader would not learn any of that from the current article.
So no, in this specific situation and time I definitely favour a two-separate-worlds structure. It's a simple pragmatic way to allow the pro-sovereignty and anti-sovereignty discourses (e.g. you and me) to disengage right now. Editor energy needs to flow into expanding encyclopedia-standard coverage of all the players in the controversy. It follows that right now I'm against point-by-point cross-linking as just a further complication. When our article-text contributions start to manifest the length, detail, and loving care that our Talk page contributions do, then both of us may finally be getting somewhere ;-) . --IslandGyrl 16:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Splitting into a pro and an anti article would allow all the main players for or against the Hawaiian sovereignty movement and their arguments to be covered in equal depth. Thus, the Lili‘uokalani quote would belong in a section on the "anti" page, titled "<name of opponent>", prefaced with something like: "In response to sovereignty advocates who cite Queen …, <name> points to …" with appropriate bibliographic reference to where the Queen's quotation is documented. Note, however, that WP is an encyclopedia, not a blog and that linking to banter on a discussion forum or blog to back up an assertion absolutely does not measure up to encyclopedic standards as a source.

I apologize for linking to the blog itself...I would have copied the data entirely from the newspaper articles mentioned, but wasn't sure if that was appropriate, since we're not supposed to host source material. --JereKrischel

Regarding other small edits:

  • What is the significance of the "Lily Dorton" reference? What is the nature of the objection to removing it? Doing a Google on "Lily Dorton" returns 7 hits, all of which can be traced back to Dr Conklin or to the information, apparently from Dr Conklin, in Wikipedia originally inserted by you (and later edited by me when I swapped the "Lily Dorton" article you had created with its Lilikala redirect).
I'm not sure what the policy of referring to people by their aliases are, but I guess I was imagining some future researcher looking at our encyclopedia and trying to match it with demographic data from other records sources (birth certificates, death certificates). Much like I think a Marylin Monroe page should note her name was Norma Jean Baker. --JereKrischel
But does it not seem strange that there would be no evidence anywhere on the entire Web that Lily Dorton is genuinely an alias of Ms Kame‘eleihiwa—only Dr Conklin's word? Why would he insist on referring to her by that name when no one else does? At the least it suggests disrespect. Why should Wikipedia want to reflect one man's personal attitude toward her? --IslandGyrl 04:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I would assume that barring some for-pay search service, most aliases would not be readily available on the web. I will try to email both Conklin and Lily/Lilikala and see if I can get confirmation or denial. If Conklin cannot offer a corroborating source and Lily/Lilikala denies the alias, we should definitely remove it. --JereKrischel
  • "Alleged" U.S. role: I feel inserting this "alleged" in the opening sentence is not in the spirit of describing the Hawaiian sovereignty advocates' position in a friendly and sympathetic tone in the few pages in all of Wikipedia devoted to them. Although perhaps technically defensible under WP NPOV policy, an equally defensible technical case might then be made for affixing to every article that refers to the "State of Hawai‘i" a disclaimer such as "The de jure status of Hawai‘i as part of the United States is disputed by some. See …" I would prefer we not go there. I also suspect that most people in Hawai‘i, even persons whose politics are 100% pro-U.S., would view a claim that the U.S. had no role whatsoever as laughable at best, and at worst about as plausible as Holocaust denial. --IslandGyrl 16:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Comparing the U.S. landing a small party of marines who never threatened anyone or fired a shot to the Holocaust is not plausible. Not to get into a detailed argument here, but I think there is a big difference between what the sovereignty movement advocates claim about the U.S. role and the actual facts. It's almost like having an article make claims about the Jewish role in instigating the Holocaust upon themselves without qualification (The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion). I would certainly refer to those as "alleged".
One of the problems with letting a statement like that stand without "alleged" is that people are literally accepting that as truth, and linking it in their minds to the trail of tears, or the holocaust, or an actual massacre. When people read the '93 Apology Bill, they assume that the U.S., through the direct use of force, shot their way to the palace, put a gun to the queen's head, and had her overthrown. This was not the case, and we should make that clear, even if that fact takes some of the wind out of the sails of pro-sovereignty advocates. --JereKrischel
Please do not twist my words. The comparison was in no way "overthrow" = "the Holocaust", it was "the plausibility to Hawaiian people of denying any U.S. involvement whatsoever in the overthrow" = "the plausibility to educated people today of Holocaust denial." Once again, regarding your or my conviction that we are in possession of the "actual facts" and those other folks aren't: for Wikipedia purposes,
"Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts." --IslandGyrl 04:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I misunderstood your intent, but it still seems like you assume that "educated" means your POV. Holocaust deniers have a very special place in the pantheon of evil for most people, and people who deny that the U.S. had any role in the overthrow do not deserve that vitriol. I consider myself educated and I see the U.S. as clearly a neutral party in the dispute, what with the conflict between the Cleveland administration and the McKinley administration. We were really on both sides of the issue, and were pulled into the conflict between the revolutionaries and the royalists. If we played any role, it was as a prop, not as an lead actor.
Of course, my view of the facts is irrelevant here, of course, but my umbrage at being compared to a holocaust denier has it's genesis in my POV. ---JereKrischel
Sorry, but you are again twisting my words. The analogy is between <the way Hawaiian people feel about "A"> and <the way educated people feel about "B">. There is no implication that educated people must feel as Hawaiians do about "A". And: I used "B" = Holocaust denial as an example in line with its two-fold use as an example in the Wikipedia policy page on neutral point of view, which I am assuming WP editors have read.
I am not asserting here that Hawaiians are right. I am asserting that if the slant in Wikipedia oversteps certain lines, most will reject Wikipedia as merely yet another venue for members of the dominant culture to propagate their version of events. In the real world, this strengthens the sovereignty folks' appeal, as they can argue: "Wherever Hawaiians are outnumbered by non-Hawaiians, even in 'alternative' projects such as Wikipedia, views prevail which insult the deepest core of who we are. We must therefore have our own set of institutions." --IslandGyrl 16:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Let me try and see if I can explain how no matter how you parse your original statement, it was offensive to me. You compared how "hawaiian" people should think about the obvious reality u.s. role the way "educated" people think about the obvious reality of the holocaust. So if I do not think of the u.s. role in a certain way, I cannot be considered "hawaiian". The phrase you used, most people in Hawai‘i, seems to include me on it's face, but demands that I hold a certain POV. It also implies that my POV is not a majority POV, which I would strongly argue. By comparing it to holocaust denial, you imply that the people that do not agree are not most people in Hawai‘i, and can be considered in the same way we consider holocaust deniers.
Maybe it would have been less offensive to me if I were a holocaust denier, because your analogy would merely validate any feelings of being a minority opinion struggling to be heard :). As it is, I happen to hold holocaust denial in contempt, but do not see my opinion about the alleged u.s. role as worthy of contempt.
It is most likely I am being too sensitive here, and I know you are not trying to attack me maliciously. But the comment hurt nonetheless. I will endeavor to grow thicker skin. --JereKrischel

[edit] Another editor

Folks, I could possibly help here (academic background in Hawaiian history, plus a LOT of research for a historical novel I'm writing) but I've been overwhelmed with my work on the Islam-related and Indian film articles. When I get time, I will look over the article and the controversies and see if I can help NPOV the discussion. I'm certainly not a favorite of Hawaiian activists (I've seriously pissed off a few people in other online discussions) but I think that many of the anti-sovereignty people are just as far off the mark. Praps I can serve (as I so often do) as the target for fire from both sides <g>. Zora 08:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Genuine Question

I am neither Polynesian nor American. I am not overly familar with the incorporation of Hawaii into the USA. As an "ordinary reader" can someone address the plain facts (according to other Wikipedia articles):

  • that there are about 500,000 Native Hawaiians,
  • that about 1/3 live in other US States,
  • that the population of the State of Hawaii is about 1,200,000.

How do the advocates of independence "deal with" the fact that any independent Hawaii would, at least initially, have more than half its population being non-Polynesian. Isn't that a bit like an Israel where the Jews were in the minority?

The article doesn't seem to give the views of the "secessionists" on this question. Avalon 03:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the disparity is even more dramatic that you would think. There are about 500,000 part-native hawaiians, of which probably only 100,000 are >= 50%, and only 10,000 or less are 100%. One of the biggest problems I think faced by the statisticians which report on kanaka maoli (native hawaiian) problems is that they go by a 1 drop rule, where even though someone may be 1/64 kanaka maoli and 63/64 european they are counted as 64/64 native hawaiian for the purposes of drop out rates, crime rates, etc. The fact that hawaii has a tradition and history from the founding of it's first kingdom of inter-marriage and multi-racial culture makes the use of a 1 drop rule even more difficult to justify.
Even amongst the "native-hawaiian" population, the majority of the population is not native-hawaiian. There have been no good studies or statistics based on the mixed blood quantum percentages, but I would venture to say that any separation of "race" is artificial and arbitrary at best. --JereKrischel 09:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lauloha's edits

Lauloha, I don't see the phrase "turning to" as implying that Hawaiians are looking for salvation outside themselves. If I'm cleaning cupboards and I get tired of it, I turn to another task. That doesn't mean I'm worshipping the other task. It means I'm changing what I'm doing. I don't mind your last change, but it seems to me that you're looking for offense and finding it. Zora 09:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Lauloha, mahalo for your edits. Small correction on the period of dormancy - both Aloha Aina and Hui Kalai'aina abandoned their anti-annexation/"sovereignty" positions, June 7, 1900, when they formed the Independent Home Rule Party. Initially with Robert Wilcox at the helm (who said, "The question of the restoration of the Monarchy is gone from us forever. We are now a people, however, who can vote. You all know we have two-thirds of the votes in this country."), they participated with vigor in the Territorial Government, although after the first term, most native Hawaiians moved with Prince Kuhio to the Republican party. --JereKrischel 17:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Lauloha, it is not true that Hawaiian sovereignty advocates would enfranchise non-Hawaiians. I know someone in Bumpy Kanahele's community who said that they believed only Native Hawaiians should be able to vote in the new Hawaiian nation they would establish. He described a very emotional meeting at which this position was adopted. You're not giving due credit to the whackos in your movement. All movements have whackos, so I don't regard this as necessarily to the discredit of the non-discriminatory HS people. But we can't whitewash the existence of oddballs. Zora 23:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


Aloha Jere & Zora --

Mahalo for your comments!

Regarding the "turn to" thing -- yeah, ok, I can agree itʻs a little nitpicky. However, I feel that it is often the general usage of everyday words which empowers and disempowers us all -- men, women, Hawaiians, Christians, atheists, Buddhists, punk rockers, whatever. To me, it didnʻt sound like "turning to" another task from cleaning the cabinets at all, it sounded much more like we were "turning to" groups/ideology for answers that OHA wasnʻt "giving" us...to me it kinda portrays us as followers. Iʻm sure that whoever wrote it originally didnʻt mean that, but I believe that where a better choice of words can be found that respects the meaning, it should be used.

Regarding "whackos": I wonʻt deny that there are probably "whackos" in the sovereignty movement (so youʻve met my ex! Just kiddinʻ), although I feel very confident that they are far less dangerous (and definitely have more aloha) than some of the "whackos" in the American government!

With regard to non-native "disenfranchisement"...I do not believe that the underlying intent of any group is to "take away" power from all non-natives, nor should it be portrayed as such. I think that many sovereignty advocates do perceive a need to correct the imbalance of power that would be caused by flatly "equal" majority-rule voting, which would logically lead to the native people being out-voted almost every time (as usually happens now).

I'm sorry, but I don't think there is any way to white wash the issue - if you assert there is an imbalance of power, than any race-based "balancing" of that is effectually "taking away" power from non-natives. The idea that we need to have two-tiers of citizenship to allow a single racial group to dominate politics without a majority is categorically disenfranchisement. --JereKrischel 16:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a very difficult problem indeed, and Iʻm not endorsing any one solution here. I would say from my own experience that the general intent is to protect as much equality as possible, while trying to find some effective solution to the very difficult problems that sovereignty seeks to address (like the disempowerment of Kanaka Maoli, militarization, destruction of sacred places, abuse of natural resources such as water, cultural persecution, land being bought up by rich foreigners with resulting homelessness, crazy prices, emigration pressure, etc. etc. etc...).

Hereʻs an excerpt from the Nation of Hawaiʻi constitution that Jere used as a "race-based" example:"Section 1. Protection against discrimination:

"...nor shall any individual person be deprived or denied the equal protections of these rights on account of race, creed, color, age, nationality, religion, gender or disability, without due process of law." ..."b. Citizens, Naturalized: "The Legislative General Assembly shall provide by law a naturalization process for all persons who qualify and choose to become citizens of the Nation".

That really doesnʻt sound to me like intent to disenfranchise, much less "ethnic cleansing". Havenʻt seen it in other constitutions, either. And Iʻve never yet heard activists talk about kicking people out based on race. Honestly, the only place Iʻve ever heard this from (okay, other than some kinda messed-up highschool kids and maybe an auntie here or there having a bad "venting" moment, which I gotta admit weʻve all probably had) is in the anti-sovereignty movement. I donʻt think itʻs good to say that people are saying whatʻs not being said; I believe the term for this is a straw man. I think thereʻs a lot of fear-based reaction to sovereignty that seems a bit more than a bit out of proportion to the problem.

That being said, I still really appreciate you guys. Aloha!!

E malama pono, Laualoha 09:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your citation, but I think it points to an underlying contradiction. Simply put, one section of the constitution claims equal protections, but then other sections specifically create two classes of citizenship, one with superior rights to the other. Regardless of intent (as I'm sure there were many Jim Crow proponents who honestly thought people would be happier if separated and kept among their own kind), the net effect is disenfranchisement. I think it is possible to be sympathetic to the sovereignty movement, but still be honest about the proposed solutions on the table. Hopefully we're getting closer to wording that we can all agree on. --JereKrischel 16:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Previously anti-annexation

I'd like to be as specific as possible on this one - Aloha Aina and Hui Kalai'aina were both dissolved and the two groups formed the Independent Home Rule Party. They abandoned their anti-annexation platform, and participated in the Territorial for 12 tumultuous years, after a first term marked by internal strife. Prince Kuhio took a big chunk of support from the Home Rule Party and moved to the Republican Party in 1903 which eventually led to the Home Rule Party's demise. Although modern incarnations of Aloha Aina and Hui Kalai'aina organizations have taken up their previously anti-annexation position, these are truly new organizations with the same name, without any continuity at all. I've made some edits, hopefully they flow better. --JereKrischel 16:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand what youʻre saying, Jere; I just think to be clear we should be careful not to let it sound like everybody just gave up & stopped being anti-annexation, because I do not believe that that is what happened. From my read of the same history, it seems to me that they just did what was most practical to achieve what they could under the circumstances. It would make very little practical sense to put energy toward an anti-annexation position, regardless of where they actually stood on the issue, after annexation had happened. At that point, it would not even be correct; once it occurs, you work internally (Home Rule, etc.) and externally (decolonization/deoccupation efforts, etc.) to correct the injustice the best you can and to control the damage that you know that injustice is gonna do. Weʻre talking about people in a very critical situation, with many, many considerations; I donʻt think they had much room to play with ideology, but it seems pretty clear where their hearts were. Aloha, Laualoha 23:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think your wording is much better, although I disagree with you on the historical motivations. It seems to me that justice was finally served by the lobbying of Wilcox and others to make sure no voting restrictions were put on kanaka maoli with the 1900 Organic Act - at that point, there was little practical sense in putting energy towards reducing kanaka maoli political power, since once we became a territory, the primarily white oligarchy had its wings clipped, and kanaka maoli reigned again. Successes came one after the other, including establishment of county governments, the founding of DHHL, and the election of many kanaka maoli to positions of power in government.
Of course, after the children of the asians who were left disenfranchised with the Organic Act grew up, and gathered political power, the tables turned - and I believe the history shows that it was after that Democratic revolution that discontent amongst some kanaka maoli grew, and the pre-1898 days were mytholigized.
This isn't meant to deny the legitimacy of grievances being claimed by sovereignty activists, but I think it is clear from the historical record that these positions have been "rediscovered", not continuously held. Individual cases may vary, of course. I sometimes wonder what kind of equivalent to the 1900 Organic Act will turn the tide again :). --JereKrischel 00:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a very interesting perspective, and I think you make some good points, although I disagree with some of them & definitely with the conclusion in regards to "rediscovery". But thatʻs to be expected, huh? Mahalo- Laualoha 01:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] June 2006 news

The vote in congress and occupation of the palace taking place in June 2006 should probably be mentioned in the article. Badagnani 01:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

??? Links? Justforasecond 04:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Level of support

I only briefly read it, but from what I did read, the article doesn't seem particularly clear on the level of support for the movement. Nil Einne 12:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged

Any U.S. role in the overthrow of the monarchy in 1893 is clearly alleged, not bald fact. The assertion that the U.S. had any functional role in the downfall of liliuokalani is contested by both the Morgan Report and the Native Hawaiians Study Commission Report, and I think is unfairly stated in the recent version. One might just as well state that something like "the CIA's role in the assassination of JFK, alleged to have been part of a conspiracy by Cuban dissidents as payback for the Bay of Pigs." Just as it would be more appropriate to state "the CIA's alleged role", it is similarly appropriate to note that the any role of the U.S. in regards to the Hawaiian Revolution is alleged. --JereKrischel 09:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi JK. I disagree completely. Obviously, by the very fact that U.S. troops were on site, they had a role. It is not alleged, it is a fact. It is alleged that they played a conspiratorial role, but that they played a role is a statement of fact. Arjuna 09:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I hope we can discuss this and come up with a reasonable interpretation of the events, which are a matter of historical record and really shouldn't be subject to whatever political agendas -- on either side -- may currently exist. So, I'm not going to rvv your edits, even though I take strong issue with some of them. Instead, let's try discussing first. Arjuna 10:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
On further reflection -- and continuing (as always) to act in and assume good faith -- I'm going to rvv "alleged". For sake of argument: one can assume that the U.S. minister had absolutely no role whatsoever in the conspiracy to overthrow the monarchy, but to argue that the U.S. had "no role" in the events is patently untrue -- indeed, a fact. The American troops did play a role -- if nothing else, they intimidated the royalists by their very presence. This is undeniable. And if nothing else, this is what the Apology Bill references. Your point about the CIA etc. -- erm, sorry, that is a non sequitur. Arjuna 10:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that blaming the U.S. troops for feelings of "intimidation" isn't a statement of their role, but more a statement of an interpretation of their role. It is undeniable that the royalists were unable to resist the Committee of Safety, and that the landing of U.S. peacekeepers may have been detrimental to morale for the royalists and supportive of morale to the Honolulu Rifles - could we just state that as the "role" they played? Also, FWIW, PL103-150 references specifically a conspiracy, not their mere presence. Let me see if I can come up with an appropriate compromise. --JereKrischel 07:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Pretenders to the Throne?

Does anyone know if there have been any claimants to the throne of Hawai'i?

Yes. See Legal status of Hawaii#Modern claims to the Kingdom. --JereKrischel 02:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/w/Talk%7EHawaiian_sovereignty_movement_9a10.html"