Talk:Legal status of Hawaii

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 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 Legal status of Hawaii, 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.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
This article has been marked as needing attention.
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:


Sorry, but I had to take this out: "The legal status of Hawai'i is not a major dispute. Further, this issue is not recognized or discussed by the majority of American and Hawaiian citizens. The controversy in Hawai'i resembles in many ways the same academic debate being argued by several other fringe groups in the United States including the Texan and Alaskan Independence Movements."


Uh, I really donʻt want to dis anybodyʻs contribution, but I have to say that I really feel that the objective of Wikipedia is to provide information. If youʻre a little biased, I can accept that: provide information to show what people donʻt know yet. But please donʻt say things like "The legal status of Hawai'i is not a major dispute", when you know very well that there are whole groups, and tons of literature, dedicated to the question of legality!

The above statement is an argument, not information, and contains (I really hate to say this, but I gotta) several logical fallacies (please donʻt make me go into them one by one!) I have nothing against people having points of view I donʻt agree with, even if theyʻre loud about them. But it wouldnʻt be very nice if I was to make an argument like this coming from the opposite point of view (i.e."The current illegal status of Hawai'i is not a major dispute. Not a single current sovereign nation disputes the illegality of American "ownership" of Hawai'i....",etc.), would it? It would be just as valid, but would drive you to correct it and therefore waste your time. I really think we need to avoid doing this to each other.

If you want to make a point, please give information that will enlighten people to whatever you want them to understand. Aloha, Laualoha 14:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the point can probably be stated in a more NPOV manner - the essence being that as a matter of international law and jurisprudence for over 100 years, the argument is settled. You can't make the inverse claim, because the Republic of Hawaii was internationally recognized, and the annexation in 1898 was also internationally recognized (with the U.S. taking up the treaty obligations/rights/responsibilites post-annexation). I'll try to insert something back in that has a less argumentative tone. --JereKrischel 16:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] POV Edits

Sorry Laualoha, I think your edits went too far on several fronts. Heading out to dinner, but I'll touch upon specifics when I return.

Also, AFAIK, there is no "Anti-Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement" - people who oppose independence of Hawaii, especially based on racial terms, believe that all Hawaiians of all ethnicities already have sovereignty as equal participants in the State of Hawaii and the United States of America. It sounds like a POV term like "anti-abortion" or "anti-choice". --JereKrischel 01:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


Hmmm...couldʻve fooled me by the guys I saw at the last several hearings I attended. The movement you claim does not exist is also, uh, online; e.g. The Anti-Hawaiian Sovereignty Web Page[1]. The Committee of Safety supposedly did not exist either, but, well...been there, done that...!
Technical note - you can make responses easier to discern by using ":" to indent. Multiple ":" make for more indentations.
Certainly that "Anti-Hawaiian Sovereignty Web Page" doesn't represent anything more than a single person's blogging :)[citation needed]. Again, casting about an "anti-" term the other way ("anti-equality sovereignty movement", "anti-non-native sovereignty movement", "anti-american sovereignty movement") really just appeals to name calling. --JereKrischel 03:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Single personʻs blogging, huh?What are these, then:[2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

[7]Laualoha 15:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the grassroot institute of Hawaii is a non-profit conservative think tank. Ken Conklin has some notoriety beyond an anonymous geocities blogger due to his involvement in fighting race-based elections in OHA, and running (unsuccessfully) for a seat, heritage.org is also a conservative think tank, and Hawaii Matters is a website regarding Twigg-Smith's book "Hawaiian Sovereignty: Do the facts matter?". That being said, maybe the Anti-Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement based on the geocities webpage will become more popular and organized - but for now, it seems simply like a lite, anonymous, personal position page. Can you see the difference? --JereKrischel 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I still disagree wih your (re?) edits also, as they are certainly very POV. I think we are going to have to work on this one, huh? Until then, Iʻd appreciate it if you would not overturn my edits (I think the cliche for that is "pot calling the kettle black", or something like that) unless you can first specify some problem with them, preferably one that you are not committing yourself. Itʻs one thing to correct misinformation, but thatʻs not what happened, & I really donʻt want to get sucked into an overturning-without-justification dual here. Weʻre both intelligent people AND parents, so I think we got a few better things to do, huh?
Have a good dinner. Aloha, Laualoha 01:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's see what we can do about addressing our detailed concerns. Please see my comments below. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 03:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Detailed concerns

1) Characterizing those who believe that the State of Hawaii is legitimate as requiring some sort of rationalization that laws were not violated immediately puts people on the defensive. It would be just as POV to put something in like, "The legal status of Hawaii is a subject of dispute between every nation that ever had diplomatic relations with the Kingdom, Republic, Territory and State of Hawaii, and those who believe that every official recognition of the overthrow, annexation, and state admission by every nation of the world, and every international world body is a violation of international and domestic law". As difficult as it may be to accept, we must recognize that the legal status of Hawaii, in regards to international and national law, has been settled. Every nation with diplomatic ties recognized the Provisional Government within 2 days of the overthrow, as well as upon the proclamation of the Republic of Hawaii, as well as the annexation of Hawaii. The Queen herself both surrendered to the Provisional Government (blaming the U.S., but addressing it to the PG), as well as officially abdicated after the failed rebellion of 1895. The Queen went further and used the U.S. judicial system to fight for personal ownership of the crown lands, and lost in 1910.

continuation of economi trade (which is common to most coups, especially those with coveted resources), and self-evaluation by the U.S. donʻt exactly add up to proof of your point.Laualoha 15:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't just economic trade, it was the treaty obligations, responsibilities and rights that were continued. --JereKrischel 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

2) The Bayonet Constitution (as it was called by its detractors), did not affect the governmental powers of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a nation - it affected the governmental powers of the monarch, and limited the electorate to non-asian rich people.

and thatʻs different from affecting the governmental powers of the kingdom because...Laualoha 15:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Because the Kingdom, as a government, still had all the powers it had before. It could still engage in diplomatic relations, negotiate treaties, and act as an international state.
What you might be referring to is the Reciprocity Act of 1874, in which both the United States and the Kingdom's powers to give special deals to other countries was limited (limiting the power of their governments). --JereKrischel 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

3) Iolani palace was not invaded by armed sugar planters, and the U.S. peacekeepers who landed during the overthrow took no part in any hostilities at all. Iolani palace was surrendered unconditionally by the Queen to the Provisional Government run by the Committee of Safety backed by the Honolulu Rifles (who had previously in 1887, with no U.s. peacekeepers on shore, shown their independent effectiveness by forcing the new constitution, as well as their actions in 1889 to singlehandedly put down the Wilcox Rebellion).

um, some of those "PG troops", and probably the guys with the cannon, rifles & sandbags (Iʻd call that armed, but maybe thatʻs just me), were definitely American sugar planters. The involvement of Minister Stevens & the marines is quite well documented too, whether you wanna call them "peacekeepers" or not.Laualoha 15:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
How can you assert that any of the specific members of the Honolulu Rifles were "definitely sugar planters"? Do they have "sugar planter" badges?
Also, the involvement of Minister Stevens and the U.S. peacekeepers has been clearly documented as being entirely neutral. See the Morgan Report. --JereKrischel 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

4) The Ku'e petitions you refer to contain many names listed, but not all of them are signatures. A contemprary analysis of the petitions found them rife with fraud, and this can be verified by examining the blatant forgeries in the images of the petition online. Furthermore, a petition with 5 times as many signatures, gathered in just one day, in favor of statehood is not mentioned.

Um, I donʻt agree that this "contemporary analysis" was accurate (if it existed at all), and I definitely think "rife with fraud" is incorrect. All indications that I know point to the citizenry (including naturalized non-natives) as strongly supporting the Kingdom, with the exception of the very rich non-natives at the top of the economic scale, who wanted a better deal.
You can find it here at the University of Hawaii. Please feel free to cite your indications specifically. --JereKrischel 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

5) Please cite any evidence for vociferous protests during the 1959 vote - 94% of the population voted in favor, and I have found no record of any significant protests of the vote at that time.

Iʻll get these - hey, how do you cite a non-online source, anyway? Mahalo, Laualoha 15:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
With the following code:
<ref>{{cite book | author=Andrade Jr., Ernest | title=Unconquerable Rebel: Robert W. Wilcox and Hawaiian Politics, 1880-1903| publisher=University Press of Colorado| year=1996 | id=ISBN 8-87081-417-6|pages=p147}}</ref>
--JereKrischel 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

6) A great deal of attention was paid to the Hawaiian Revolution, by many parties - in the end, the arguments of the pro-monarchy folks were found wanting. Grover Cleveland sent Blount to investigate, and upon his initial information, demanded the reinstatement of the Queen. Dole refused. The Morgan Report was commissioned by Congress to investigate further, and the royalist position was found to be exaggerated, and the U.S. was cleared of any misconduct. The queen further protested the recognition of the Republic of Hawaii, and was rebuffed by all governments she approached, after much attention and due consideration. The United Nations specifically took Hawaii off the list of non-self-governing territories after statehood, and the 1983 Native Hawaiians Study Commission report also found, after paying significant attention, the claims of royalists to be unfounded. There has been plenty of attention paid over the years, it just hasn't turned out to the benefit of those who believe the royalist position.

Well I agree that no country found it in their busy schedule to go to bat against America for an overthrown, brown, female monarch at that time, especially as everyone knew just how coveted Pearl Harbor was by the U.S. military, and what they would probably do to keep it. I mean, even now, few countries have the guts to openly criticize "Uncle Sam". As for the U.N. List thing, you are incorrect. The U.N. removed Hawaiʻi from the list the same year statehood was enacted (1959), which hardly gives an impoverished people time to raise funds for a plane ticket to Switzerland, much less present the case.Laualoha 15:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Pearl Harbor was already leased to the United States as per the Reciprocity Treaty.
The U.N. removed Hawaii the from the non-self-governing territories list the same year that over 90% of the people there voted for statehood. Even rich people, with money to head to Switzerland to lobby against removing it from the list, would have no case to present. --JereKrischel 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

7) As I mentioned earlier, there is no "Anti-Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement". The legal claims of sovereignty proponents have been consistently rejected by every body which has examined them, from the international community, to the courts, to the various congressional commissions and investigations. As strongly as one may hold the position of the sovereignty movement, it is an undeniable truth that such a position is "fringe".

"undeniable truth"? Pleeease read your comment above yourself. Sounds kinda scary, doncha think? Laualoha 15:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it does sound kind of scary. I may not be expressing myself well - I want to clearly indicate to you that the assertion that the hawaiian sovereignty movement is fringe, and can be characterized as being an extreme minority, is a statement of observation, not of merit. This is not "hasty generalization", because I'm not asking you to derive a conclusion from the generalization (that is to say, I'm not asking you to believe that if something is extreme minority, therefore it is wrong).
I understand that as a political movement, hawaiian sovereignty activists want to make the world believe it is not an extreme minority, so that it gains the credibility that comes with hasty generalization (that is to say, they want people to believe that if something is a large minority, or a majority, therefore it is right). Wikipedia is not a platform for the political goals of an extreme minority movement. --JereKrischel 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


Now, I don't mean to say that there isn't room for improvement to the article, and your input is certainly welcome. If there is a certain phrase or sentence that you see as POV pushing from the other side, let's work together to make it more neutral. --JereKrischel 03:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of this page

This page was actually started as a template which got deleted, but it was carefully written in concert with IslandGyrl, and was the work of both pro-sovereignty activists and sovereignty skeptics. We worked diligently to make sure that both sides were represented well in the information presented, with the best arguments of both sides asserted. To assert that the introduction somehow promotes an "anti-sovereignty" viewpoint because it does not affirm the beliefs of the sovereignty movement regarding the actual, observable history of law and jurisprudence, isn't really fair.

It does not say that the pro-sovereignty viewpoint is incorrect, but merely factually states the argument is an academic one that has had no traction in any court, with any nation, or any international body. Although certainly important to the people who believe it, we must consider the Wikipedia policy regarding NPOV and undue weight. --JereKrischel 04:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you know itʻs only the prologue to the page which I have edited at all, and you & I both know it is quite POV as it stands as-is. Please donʻt play with words in pretense; Iʻm asking you to speak sincere ʻoiaʻiʻo truth here, as I ask all people to do.
Iʻd also kinda like to know why you removed the information I edited in; even if you felt that that information was lacking in the ways you pointed out above (Iʻll address those when I have time), it doesnʻt seem right to me to erase it, as it was not incorrect. I mean, maybe you know Wikipedia policy better than me, but isnʻt it kinda bad form to go around deleting peopleʻs stuff just because you think it might give people the wrong idea? I mean, if you think the information biases the article, it seems to me it would be more respectful to the readers to add your evidence to it, not remove it from view. E malama pono, Laualoha 07:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed the information because my initial response was to edit it in place, and push the POV back to NPOV. As I started, I realized that what would happen is a tit-for-tat expansion of every single point - both of us being literally accurate, but pushing POV one way or another.
It is common in wikipedia to revert POV pushing edits, even if factually correct. Being a "fact" does not make it appropriate to include (I learned this on the Hawaiian Sovereignty page, when I started inserting undeniable facts that pushed POV:
(quoted from the Talk:Hawaiian sovereignty movement page)
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.
So, it is with some experience in engaging over the issue that I decided to revert your statements of "fact", instead of trying to "add" my facts to them to twist them around the other way. What we really want is NPOV, something we can both agree on - and it is difficult.
One of the things that sometimes helps, is to try and write from the other person's POV - pretend for a second you're completely convinced that sovereignty activists don't have a legal leg to stand on, and write from that perspective. You'll often find that brings you to a nice comfortable center. I try to do it all the time, to varying degrees of success.
In any case, thank you very much for engaging in this process. Please don't be offended by my revert, it was intended to give us a chance to avoid an escalation of "facts" and POV pushing. If you could try to express some of your concerns with how you feel a certain POV is being pushed currently in the article, perhaps we can find a way to address that issue together. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 09:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Authoritative dismissal

I took this part out because 1) I believe this has been authoritatively dismissed by a number of legal bodies, and 2) the whole point of the sovereignty movement is the denial of any final authority. No sovereignty activist has ever, to my knowledge, indicated a court or deliberative body, national or international, to whom they would accept a negative decision from. Not sure who said it, but something along the lines of, "no causes are truly lost, because no causes are truly won". --JereKrischel 09:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "with finality"

I think you did a good job catching my use of the weasel word "although" - making it two sentences helps make it more NPOV. However, the matter has been settled with finality by international and U.S. national legal bodies on several occasions - although again, not to the satisfaction of activists.

1) The Morgan Report, February 26, 1894, followed by the Turpie Resolution of May 31, 1894, established by congressional investigation and findings of fact (as opposed to the Apology Resolution "whereas" clauses), the lack of involvement of the U.S. in the Hawaiian Revolution, and the legitimacy of the Provisional Government;

2) In a 1903 criminal case, Territory of Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903) the U.S. Supreme Court noted that "the status of the islands and the powers of their provisional government were measured by the Newlands resolution[.]" That point was made even more forcefully in a separate opinion in the case filed by by Justice Harlan. Justice Harlan disagreed with the court on a different issue which concerned Hawaiian law as to jury trials, but on the issue of the validity of the Newlands resolution, he agreed fully with the majority, stating, "By the resolution, the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands became complete, and the object of the proposed treaty, that 'those islands should be incorporated into the United States as an integral part thereof, and under its sovereignty' was accomplished.";

3) In 1910, Liliuokalani's personal claims to the crown lands were decided invalid, citing Hawaiian Kingdom law and jurisprudence;

4) Both the Provisional Government and Republic of Hawaii were internationally recognized as the legitimate government of Hawaii by every nation that had any diplomatic relationship with the Hawaiian Kingdom (since there was no "international legal body" in 1893/1894, this serves as a stand-in);

5) In 1959, following the Statehood vote and Statehood, the United Nations removed Hawaii from the list of non-self-governing territories.

This does get into another troubling area, of course - 1893 was before the League of Nations and before the United Nations existed, so even defining an international legal body with jurisdiction over the actions of that year is problematic - certainly, the U.N. couldn't re-adjudicate the American Civil War, or Kamehameha's conquest of the Islands, but in some ways that is what is being asked for by some sovereignty activists.

My question is this, and I think if you answer it honestly you'll see my point - what judicial body would sovereignty activists accept a final statement from? If the ICJ ruled tomorrow that Hawaii was legally a State of the United States, would it be accepted? If the Supreme Court ruled tomorow that Hawaii was legally a State of the United States, would it be accepted?

The whole reason why this debate exists is because activsts do not see any setback as final. To imply that there have been no decisions on the world-stage regarding this matter is pushing POV.

I hope that makes sense - and again, thanks for catching my "although" weasel word. Hopefully it's starting to read better --JereKrischel 19:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Larsen vs. Hawaiian Kingdom

Although you may disagree that the matter has been settled, Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom is not a strong example for your point of view.

First of all, the matter was taken up by paid arbitrators from the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The two parties to the arbitration were Larsen, and David Sai, alleging to represent the Hawaiian Kingdom. The United States was not a party to the arbitration, nor was it a party to the original dispute, and had never agreed to address the matter in a personal arbitration between Larsen and Sai.

As a condition of arbitration, the PCA had to accept all stiupations agreed to by both parties in the arbitration. What they found was that there was no disagreement between Larsen and Sai, and that they could not arbitrate on their disagreements with the U.S., so the matter was dismissed.

See Ken Conklin's article regarding the PCA arbitration that was summarily dismissed for more details. --JereKrischel 20:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The actual "award" from the arbitration panel clearly stated: in the absence of the United States of America, the Tribunal can neither decide that Hawaii is not part of the USA, nor proceed on the assumption that it is not. To take either course would be to disregard a principle which goes to heart of the arbitral function in international law. It is deceptive to assert that the U.S. v. Hawaiian Kingdom dispute (which was not in the scope of their arbitration) was favorably considered by the arbitration panel - they clearly stated that they could not even address the issue. --JereKrischel 20:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


A detailed analysis of the Larsen case is not my kuleana, although I have a much different interpretation than you & Mr. Conklin. I will leave it for others to address this in greater detail. However, you make my point: the matter has not been decided, and the case is an example of this. Laualoha 22:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


I think you misunderstood what I illustrated here - this case was NOT an example of the matter not being decided - it was a matter of Larsen and Sai trying to bring up the matter in an inappropriate venue. This was a case where the matter was found to be beyond the scope of the arbitration between Larsen and Sai. --JereKrischel 22:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Letʻs get the basics straight: Sai appeared as the representative of an occupied government, and Larsen appeared as a citizen of that government, whose interests were not being represented by that government. The hard part was that Sai could not represent Larsenʻs interests due to the repression of any exercise of Hawaiian government or sovereignty by the U.S., who didnʻt come to court, so the court could not decide between Sai and Larsen (I guess they werenʻt exactly going to drag George Bush from his golf game for those traffic tickets; it could be rather unpleasant). If there was no case and/or no occupied country, the World Court would not have convened on the matter in the first place (I canʻt just make up the country of Blablabla & have the World Court decide my citizensʻ governmental disputes at the Hague!), and if the matter was "settled" as you say, there would not have been a case. Then, the WC simply said that the venue wasnʻt going to work out, because the core of the matter was that the real problem was between Hawaiʻi and the U.S., which they were not prepared to arbitrate in that case, due to the many factors involved which ultimately indicated that arbitration wasnʻt really the resolution method that would straighten out the issue of Mr. Larsenʻs traffic tickets. I donʻt exactly call that "settled".Laualoha 23:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's get some further basics straight - Larsen sued Sai, and they both agreed to have the case dismissed into arbitration. They did not name the U.S. as a party to the suit, nor a party to the arbitration. If they had wanted to name the U.S. as a defendant, they could have.
They PAID for 3 arbitrators from the Permanent Court of Arbitration (not the International Court of Justice). They did not convene a tribunal of the World Court. The paid arbitrators, upon listening to the dispute (or lack thereof), decided that there was nothing they could arbitrate on, becuase the parties who had agreed to the arbitration AGREED on everything. Their beef was with the U.S., and they should have sued them in court instead of eachother. --JereKrischel 23:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, another note, there is nothing that would stop you, or me, from paying for arbitrators at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and you or me claiming that we represented the Kingdom of Hawaii. There were no requirements that David Sai nor Larsen fulfilled in order to purchase the services of the PCA: http://www.pca-cpa.org/ENGLISH/GI/scheduleofcosts.htm. Remember, this was an arbitration service, not a judicial proceeding. --JereKrischel 00:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
More details - from the FAQ section of the PCA:
1. Is the PCA part of the United Nations system?
No, it is an independent intergovernmental organization with its own constituent conventions (1899 and 1907).
Of course, the real International Court of Justice at the Hague is part of the UN (from their website:
The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Its seat is at the Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands). It began work in 1946, when it replaced the Permanent Court of International Justice which had functioned in the Peace Palace since 1922. It operates under a Statute largely similar to that of its predecessor, which is an integral part of the Charter of the United Nations.'
Hope this makes things clearer regarding Larsen v. Sai. --JereKrischel 00:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, also a list of PCA members, which explicitly omits the Kingdom of Hawaii as a member. --JereKrischel 00:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A theft is a theft.

Can a theft become legal by internal decision or by changing hands?

Itʻs true that sovereignty proponents would certainly not accept any decision as final. If somebody showed up with a bogus deed to your house and kicked you out of it, would you accept a decision as final -- even from a court, and especially from a court where the thief sat as judge and all his business associates, who owed him money, sat as jury? I rather think not. If itʻs injustice and you know it and you can prove it and itʻs something you care about, you just keep appealing, keep lobbying, do whatever you have to do to make it right. Right?

The problem is, people have a different idea of what is "right" in this case. At a certain point, in our system of government, it hits the Supreme Court, and then it is done. The issue with the point of view of sovereignty activists is that no matter what happens, they don't accept that the matter has been settled until it is settled to their approval. --JereKrischel 23:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
People always have a different view of what is right in disputes, Jere. When you say "our" system of government, that only goes for those who identify as Americans. The supreme court of the U.S. is a part of the occupying government, and have no power to "settle" a dispute to which they are a party. Laualoha 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem, Laualoha, is that in 1893 there was no power that could settle the dispute between the two parties. We cannot create an international body like the U.N., and then assert that it has ex post facto authority to adjudicate something that happened outside of its temporal jurisdiction. Can you name any entity that would have had the power to settle this in 1893? 1898? 1900? --JereKrischel 02:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
For example, after the creation of Israel, a house was taken by a jewish family that had belonged to a palestinian family. Will the palestinians accept this as final? No matter what peace treaties or negotiations or world court decisions are made? It's an injustice, we know about it, and we can prove it, so we can't stand for it can we?
Except, of course, the jewish family sees it in different terms. They see their biblical homeland as being stolen hundreds if not thousands of years ago, and assert that their injustice against the palestinian is merely correcting a greater injustice.
Although you may personally believe that you know what is justice and what is not, and what can be proven and what can't, frankly, in Wikipedia, that doesn't hold water. You and I can both agree that the Hawaiian Sovereignty movement is an extreme minority in the world.
uh, no, I donʻt think so. The Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement and its supporters (which include hundreds of indigenous nations, hundreds if not thousands of NGOʻs, the Green Party, all Hawaiʻi congressioners, Bill Clinton, the majority of the U.S. Congress who passed the Apology Resolution, etc. etc. etc.) do not exactly constitute the Wikipedia definition of a Tiny Minority. Wikipedia also has a policy of countering

Systemic Bias, which is certainly a factor here.Laualoha 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are talking about a tiny minority. Certainly the Apology Resolution had in Section 3 a large disclaimer regarding any legal issues, and neither the Green Party, Hawaii's congressional delegation, Bill Clinton, nor the U.S. Congress has ever asserted that the State of Hawaii should be disbanded and given back to modern day royalists.
Regarding systemic bias, I think it is the other way around - I have worked diligently for months now combating the systemic bias placed in Wikipedia regarding the Hawaiian Revolution, and it has been difficult. --JereKrischel 02:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You and I can both agree that for over 100 years, no decision by any deliberative body has come down in favor of the movement. Let's work from there, and try to make it clear in the article that being a minority viewpoint, and being on the losing side of history, does not mean that the viewpoint is inherently invalid, or baseless. I've given it a shot, hopefully we can put something together that does not whitewash the magnitude of the struggle being faced here. --JereKrischel 23:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"The losing side of history?" Jere, it kinda sounds to me like youʻre kinda calling my people losers, and thatʻs almost hovering on the border of an ad hominem. Letʻs not go there, ok? Itʻs not nice. We might not have all the weapons the U.S. has, nor the psyche to use them if we did, but that doesnʻt exactly mean weʻve "lost". Itʻs true that the "winners" of history have usually been the ruthless invaders and weapon-rich military leaders, but you know, I kinda think that might be a bit of a problem in our world, ya know? We "lost" our government because of the Queenʻs decision not to take up arms, in order to "prevent loss of life". I donʻt think itʻs very nice to imply that sheʻs a loser because of that.
Letʻs just deal with the facts, and simple logic. No decision for, no decision against. Period. U.S. internal decisions donʻt count, because they are a party.
Just because you've been losers so far, does not preclude you from eventually winning, nor does make a judgement as to whether or not your POV has merit.
If you want to ignore U.S. internal decisions, just look at all the international decisions - within 48 hours, every nation with diplomatic relations recognized the Provisional Government of Hawaii. Recognition of the Republic of Hawaii was similarly swift. In 1945 Hawaii was put on the list of non-self-governing territories, and in 1959 it was taken off by the U.N.. Every international decision of each individual nation that ever had diplomatic relations with the Kingdom of Hawaii, and every international body which has considered the matter has been in favor of the legitimacy and legality (although not necessarily the morality) of the Hawaiian Revolution, and subsequent annexation and statehood. --JereKrischel 02:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

To say that Hawaiʻi was annexed legally is basically saying that itʻs okay to invade any peaceful country, steal their land, move in your troops and destroy their ʻaina and culture. I mean, I guess you can argue that the Committee of Safety were not all technically Americans, but for all intents & purposes (political, economic, social, cultural, religious, etc.) they were, whereas many other non-native citizens had become naturalized in these underlying areas.

That's not true at all - to say that Hawaii was annexed legally is basically saying that if an internal revolution occurs, and the internationally recognized government which comes out of that revolution negotiates and executes annexation, and the international community accepts it as legitimate, then it is legal. The moral issues regarding whether or not this was a good or a bad thing for specific groups can be endlessly debated, but the legality of the matter is has been settled against sovereignty activists in every attempt to address it before any legal body.
uh, no, I hate to admit it, but thereʻs just a helluva lotta work that goes into even getting heard by these international legal bodies, and the few that weʻve gotten an ear from have pretty much told us "sounds good, but I donʻt really have time for this today." Which we understand, given that there are lots of other valid issues out there in the world addition to ours. So weʻre patient. That doesnʻt prove weʻve lost. Laualoha 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, until you've won, you're losing. But there's no need to even use that terminology in the article - I accept that the term carries some emotional weight to it; I was just using it for clarity, not diplomacy. Do you have a list of the attempts and responses we could put into the article? --JereKrischel 02:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Put another way, to say that the Kingdom of Hawaii was legal is basically saying that it's okay to invade other islands, push their people off of cliffs, and destroy their 'aina and culture. --JereKrischel 23:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, whether the Committee of Safety (who certainly acted illegally, especially if they were indeed "Hawaiian Citizens") were American or not is beside the central point. One cannot make a theft valid by "laundering" it through another party. If somebody rips off your bike and then donates it to the city bike-sharing program, and then the theft is discovered, the city has to give it back to you -- even though it was being shared by several people. The question of what to do for the innocent people who might now be left "bikeless" is an important and related issue, but it is not the issue, and their reliance on your stolen bicycle doesnʻt make it any less a theft!

Without asserting an adjudicating authority, and a body of law, you cannot assert a crime, or "illegality" of any sort. In the case of the Hawaiian Revolution, all attempts to bring the royalist position before any adjudicating authority and body of law have been met with failure. You cannot make annexation a crime if there was no law against it, and no authority to adjudicate various interpretations of that law. --JereKrischel 23:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but taking somebodyʻs peaceful government by force is a crime. Taking control of that government (which you were instrumental in stealing) from the thief without the peopleʻs consent or regard to their protest, is a crime. Ya canʻt catch-22 your way out of that. Laualoha 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, please cite the law in effect in 1893 that declared that to be true. And then cite the adjudicating body that could have decided between the two points of view regarding the Hawaiian Revolution.
Kamehameha the Great took away peaceful governments by force as he unified the islands. He took control without popular consent, or regard to any protests. Did he commit a crime by your standards as well? How do we hold him accountable? --JereKrischel 02:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course analogies will never tell the story of whatʻs happened to us. But then, the point is very simple: Our government and our lands were stolen, period. And thatʻs illegal under anybodyʻs law. Laualoha 22:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to your POV, but there is no "period", and that isn't "illegal under anybody's law". This is a contentious issue, and both sides believe something very different. Our job, as Wikipedians, is to strive for NPOV as best we can, and insisting that your point of view is exclusively true is not the way to do that. We must sympathetically present both sides, and make it clear that the weight of actual historical reference, regardless of how many voices have cried out against the annexation of Hawaii, has been one of acceptance of its legitimacy. --JereKrischel 23:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
As I clearly state below, I am not pushing this POV in the article. This is a talk forum, where it belongs.Laualoha 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

p.s. Iʻm not asserting this point in the article, but I think you are forcibly asserting the counterpoint, and I really think we need to leave it neutral and get on to other things, donʻt you?Laualoha 22:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed sections

I think to get further into the discussion, we're going to need to break out into several sections. I'd like to propose the following:

  • Past legal actions
    • courts
    • decisions
  • legislation (apology resolution/akaka bill would go here)
  • investigations (Blount/Morgan/NHSC/USCCR go here)

Any other ideas on how to organize the info? --JereKrischel 23:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great, but as a working mom, Iʻll have to try to find some help. AlohaLaualoha 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Instead of fighting over footnotes, why don't we expand the detailed sections with specific references? We break out Blount already, and I made a separate section for photographs. It is not always clear what your citation refers to, and it probably helps to work out the details in more length in a lower section. --JereKrischel 04:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing POV pushing

I notice that the statement "All governments who had diplomatic relations with the Kingdom of Hawaii responded with the extension of recognition to the Provisional Government and subsequently the Republic of Hawaii." is being consistently softened to Some governments. I've changed it to Every - it cannot be factually stated that it was only some governments. If you'd like to put a citation in regarding a *belief* somewhere in a detailed section, we can assert the difference of opinion between the facts expressed in things like the Morgan Report, Kuykendall and Andrade, and whatever reference you find that indicates that recognition was not universal. --JereKrischel 14:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] House of Kawananakoa

Shouldn't there be some mention of the House of Kawananakoa since it is considered the historically recognized presumptive heirs of the Kingdom of Hawai'i?

-70.176.93.225 06:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how you could possibly make that assertion. The Kawananakoa family has never made any legal claim, only ceremonial ones, from what I understand... --JereKrischel 23:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/e/g/Talk%7ELegal_status_of_Hawaii_ec1c.html"