Saturday, May 3, 2008

Hawaii is revolting

Oh, I dunno. It seemed like such a pretty place on Magnum P.I.

Seriously, there's some sort of attempt to reclaim the state by natives and kick the United States out

AP's Mark Niesse reported yesterday, "Native Hawaiian sovereignty advocates" who are members of the group known as the Hawaiian Kingdom Government occupied the grounds of the palace of Hawaii's final monarch, Queen Lili`uokalani.

"Hawaiian activists have long used the palace as the site for protests of what they call the United States' occupation of the islands, but never before had they physically taken control," wrote Niesse.

Pacific Business News reported that the "protesters" surrounded the Iolani Palace in Honolulu, chained palace gates, posted no-trespassing signs, and told "palace officials that the palace is their rightful seat of government." The PBN story noted that "Only those with Hawaiian blood, as well as news media, were initially allowed onto palace grounds."

I gotta tell ya, not that worried. These people ain't exactly maori. We took over the place by, what, paying them off with trinkets and beads? It worked in Manhattan.

I say we put it up for a referendum. Of course, if they secede, everyone who lives there loses all their Social Security benefits, veterans benefits, etc.

Now, if we're talking about giving native Hawaiians the same rights as native Americans (as in "Indians") I completely agree.


Gata said...

For More information see
About the Illegal U.S. Occupation of Hawaii

Knight in Dragonland said...

From Wikipedia (not the best source, but expedient):
In 1887, under the influence of Walter M. Gibson, a group of primarily American and European businessmen, including kingdom subjects and members of the Hawaiian government forced Kalākaua to sign the derisively nicknamed "Bayonet Constitution" which stripped the king of administrative authority, eliminated voting rights for Asians and set minimum income and property requirements for American, European and native Hawaiian voters, essentially limiting the electorate to wealthy elite Americans, Europeans and native Hawaiians. King Kalakaua reigned until his death in 1891. His sister, Liliuokalani (Liliʻuokalani), succeeded him to the throne and ruled until her overthrow in 1893.
In 1893, Queen Liliuokalani announced plans to establish a new constitution that would have replaced the so-called "Bayonet Constitution" that was established during the reign of King Kalakaua by American and European residents under threat of violence. The new constitution would have restored much power to the monarchy, but this was opposed by (mainly foreign) business elites. On January 14, 1893, a group of American and Europeans formed a Committee of Safety in opposition to the Queen, and seized control of government. United States Government Minister John L. Stevens, responding to a request from the Committee of Safety expressing concern about possible violence directed against American citizens, summoned a company of uniformed U.S. Marines to come ashore to enforce neutrality. As one historian noted, the presence of these troops effectively made it impossible for the monarchy to protect itself.

Soooo ... our government supported a coup against an internationally recognized independent government (certainly not the last time that's happened). Hawaiians weren't exactly bought off with trinkets and beads.

Just like the "Indians" you mentioned, we took Hawaii from its people by force. Is an independent Hawaii the best thing for its people now, in 2008? Probably not, but we shouldn't deride these people because they have an entirely valid point, historically and morally.

Knight in Dragonland said...

By the way, there are also secession movements in Vermont, California, Texas and Alaska, and a group of Lakota led by Russell Means have recently declared the independent nation of Lakotah.

Just an FYI that Hawaii isn't alone in this.