I received the most interesting trackback to this post from yesterday. You can find the link here.
The money quote:
{...}For the record, Hawaii's independence is not secession. Hawaii's sovereignty or territory was never legally ceded to the United States, either through the purported annexation via mere joint resolution, or the fraudulent so-called plebiscite for statehood and the admissions act, both domestic legislations without extraterritorial force on the country of Hawaii, which continues to be under prolonged illegal occupation. No cession, no secession. What we are talking about is not secession, but ending the occupation of Hawaii.Whether you agree with the above or not, it is important to at least understand that perspective, which is held by many.
Ooooooooookay then. "No cession, no secession." Heh. That's a tricksy little bit of legalese, isn't it? I honestly don't see where the heck this gentleman gets that from, given that, according to the WSJ piece, native Hawaiians voted 2-1 for statehood in 1959, but hey, I suppose everyone's got a dream! It appears this gent's arguments are derived from a "creative" workaround of the facts.
See the problem with Mr. Laudig's argument is not the---oh, how should I put this? I'm going to try and be nice, but wow, I just don't see how that's possible.---insanity in it, but rather that he doesn't carry the insanity all the way through. I mean, honestly, if you're going to do it, do it right, eh?
If Hawaii was really under a "prolonged illegal occupation," Mr. Laudig shouldn't recognize Senator Akaka as a "Senator," should he? After all, you can't send representatives to a government you're being "illegally occupied" by, can you? That's not the way it generally works. I mean, what's the point in doing that, from the occupier's viewpoint? If you're going to expend the time and effort to "illegally occupy" a place---particularly for going on fifty years---why on Earth would you give its people access to representative government of the occupier, let alone all the rights and benefits that come with the citizenship you gave them upon entry into the Union? I suppose one could argue that we're taking the "killing them with kindness" path, but, really, why bother if it's just an "illegal occupation"? It doesn't make much sense, on the whole. It seems a wee bit generous.
I could go on, but I think you get the gist.
Posted by Kathy at August 18, 2005 11:04 PM | TrackBackfyi, steve laudig is actually a sponsor of the blog, not the author. that's me.
at least i got you talking about it :)
with limited knowledge of hawaii's history, it is not surprising to see this argument as a "'creative' workaround of the facts."
but even if you would like to dismiss it out of hand, you may want to be aware that it is debated openly and vigorously in the pages of Hawaii's newspapers and many other ways in the communities of the islands. you mould be surprised how widespread this perspective is in the islands.
i'm not here to argue or convince you, but if you are seriously interested in being informed about the history and understanding at least part of the reason why people believe statehood is not valid, even if to better argue against that position, see these two essays:
http://hawaii-nation.org/statehood.html
http://hawaii-nation.org/statehood2.html
And then for a broader discussion of the history going back to initial U.S. intervention, and looking at the various points at which sovereignty could have been ceded and by what means, check out this brief by international attorney Matthew Craven:
http://www.hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/Continuity_Hawn_Kingdom.pdf
And for even more in-depth perspectives on different aspects of this argument, check out the various articles in the Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics, and the primary source documents that are presented on the site here:
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~hslp/journal_vol1.html
If nothing else, hopefully you'll see that this isn't just some fringe idea with no thought behind it. It is based on what many find a compelling legal history, and one that the U.S. will eventually have to address.
Posted by: scott crawford at August 19, 2005 04:02 AMoh yeah, and of course I recognize that the U.S. sees Akaka as a senator, and does not view it as an occupation. my calling him a senator is the only point you actually raise as "the problem" with the argument, but that's beside the point.
who knows, with the length republicans are willing to go with redistricting to gain seats in congress, maybe they'll decide getting rid of Hawaii's two reliably Dem senate and house seats is good political strategy ;)
Posted by: scott crawford at August 19, 2005 04:26 AMWow, lady. You really stirred up a hornet's nest, didn't you?
Seriously? I find the whole "50 years of occupation" thing incredibly ridiculous. Are they contending that Hawaii isn't better off as a state in the Union?
What I find curious about this is my own history in Kansas. You see, I'm originally from Southwestern Kansas and a number of years ago, there was a part of that region that wanted to secede from the state of Kansas, and become a separate state in the union.
The ambition came from irritation over unreasonable taxation. For example, larger proportions of land owners in the west paying more than their fair share of revenue to prop up Eastern Kansas crap. The movement failed, but there were a lot of hot-blooded individuals riled up about it (including my own family - we have a problem with unreasonable taxation).
Back to Hawaii. I've been to Hawaii. My concern here is that it sets a dangerous precedent. I also don't see how the US taxpayer can take back all of his investment in Hawaii, so I don't really see it as fair.
Honestly, I don't think they have a snowball's chance in Hades.
Posted by: Phoenix at August 19, 2005 09:24 AMOops.
Mr. Crawford might have been given the benefit of the doubt, treated fairly and earned the respect accorded to people making worthwhile comments to demonstrate differeing points of view. He might have even gotten many people to read the articles he pointed out supporting his position.
But then:
who knows, with the length republicans are willing to go with redistricting to gain seats in congress, maybe they'll decide getting rid of Hawaii's two reliably Dem senate and house seats is good political strategy ;)Unreasonable bias has been displayed. If he believes that all the gerrymandering done in this country has been done from the Republican side of the aisle, who the hell knows what else he might believe?
Admittedly, this doesn't have much to do with his original argument. But of course, that's the point. Why would he handicap his cause by setting off the warning bells in our heads that we just might be dealing with a moonbat?
Posted by: MRN aka "The Husband" at August 19, 2005 10:25 AMScott, brah, you have da kine lolo ideas.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
The Hawaiian statehood question is a fantastic legal exercise, but nothing more. I don't doubt there's a groundswell of anti-statehood sentiment in the islands right now - having lived there for a few years in the last 80s, I saw how tightly some held onto their grievances.
It's now believed that those aggregated grievances, along with some legal two-stepping, can change the fact that those living in Hawaii were given a chance to vote on statehood and accepted it, that Hawaii was admitted as a state by Congress and President Eisenhower and, most importantly, that the Hawaiian government and native Hawaiians have accepted the benefits of statehood without complaint for half a century.
Hawaiians have allowed the federal government to pay for roads, schools and other capital improvements to the island before and since becoming a state. Paying taxes, voting, taking federal funds and participating in other U.S. civic exercises does imply that Hawaiians have, for years, consented with the fact that their territory is a state subject to the rules and customs of the United States.
One could argue, I suppose, that the Hawaiian government was forced to take millions in federal funds from the United States and elect representatives to its government, but it's a hard sell.
If those advocating Hawaiian independence want to live by the courage of their convictions, they would pull their representatives out of Congress, stop paying taxes and stop accepting funds from a government they do not recognize as their sovereign.
Posted by: Slublog at August 19, 2005 12:39 PMHere we go again. Americans blabbing about what we are not or we cant do or something else that completely avoids the Truth of the racist and illegal theft of Hawaii. The US Constitution says that treaties are the "supreme" law of the land. Is that true or not? Is your word of honor for real or not? The US broke just about every single treaty it had with native peoples and all with Hawaii. So? So lets go to a neutral non US court for a judgement. We tried at the Permanent Court of Arbitration but the most powerful, richest, self rightous nation on the planet would not come. Bottom line. The US has admitted that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii was "illegal", and that said government was the "lawful". One cannot "annex" or make a "state" out of something that was stolen. Lastly, it was non native Hawaiian Americans who voted for statehood. This included all US servicemen and their families.
Posted by: steven at August 19, 2005 01:13 PMOh, where to begin...
First, "racist" is not a synonym for "everything I disagree with," okay? Throwing the word around like so much confetti only makes it harder for those of us who value the language to use it when it really applies.
Second, this Hawaiian independence movement is largely based on the 1993 apology resolution sponsored by Senator Daniel Akaka. You wrote:
The US has admitted that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii was "illegal", and that said government was the "lawful". One cannot "annex" or make a "state" out of something that was stolen.In that case, Kathy's original point still holds. A U.S. Senator elected from an "illegal" state would not have legal standing to sponsor such legislation. By the act of electing Senator Akaka and all of the other representatives to Congress, the Hawaiian people have shown they are willing to consent to the rule of the U.S. government.
Unfortunately, with the right to elect senators comes the responsibilities of statehood. Hawaiians want it both ways - they want to use the rights given to them as a state to advocate for their independence.
Again. If they want independence, they should stop paying taxes, withdraw Congressional representation and cease cashing treasury checks. Until that happens, this is just a lot of hot air and empty protests.
Posted by: Slublog at August 19, 2005 01:31 PMMRN, i was making a joke. or trying to.
Posted by: scott crawford at August 19, 2005 01:41 PMScott, If that's the case, then please accept my apologies. Its difficult to joke about things like that, because as you can see from poster Steven above, the truly blinkered lemmings come out of the wood-work on issues like this.
Posted by: MRN aka "The Husband" at August 19, 2005 04:48 PMJust wrote something (about akaka of the "akaka bill" (S147)- that might fit here:
In a message dated 8/18/2005 11:40:19 PM Hawaiian Standard Time, scott@aloha.net writes:
actually he's (akaka) still not saying it precludes it (independence), just that it has nothing to do with it, and that he doesn't support it. he's trying to satisfy both sides, and it's funny to see him bounce back and forth in how he explains it.
He has "sworn on oath" to support the (u.s.) federal constitution (and I don't know what else). Hawai'i independence is not something that the "constitution" provides for. Actually - it's something that the "constitution" DOESN'T provide for and/or actually restricts (in one way or another).
So - his compliance with federal law, policies, etc., ALL goes opposite from where WE want to go. Don't expect MIRACLES. "Akaka" is not the first step towards independence - it is the last step FROM independence.
On another angle, the Doctrine of Terra Nullis and the Foundation of Manifest Destiny are still alive and well in u.s. outlook and practice.
Let's face it - being "brown" and (seemingly) "non-Christian" does not help our cause. (Anyone who feels that america and the akaka bill has nothing to do with race is a blooming idiot.)
When Lili'u was on the throne, they said that "Hawai'i was ripe for the 'taking.'" So - they took in brazen defiance to all the rules of "civilized" relations between nations/states.
Now the traitors among us are poised to complete the job - making it able for the u.s. to seamlessly finish what it set out to do - "relating everything back" as if the Monarchy (and its subjects) voluntarily transitioned to "the Hawaiian governing entity" (that is nowhere a "government" that will be part of a "government to government relationship" that OHA and others want everyone to think that the outcome will be) - with all historical, legal, etc., glitches [like the "annexation" that didn't happen and theft ("ceded") of our lands] being hit by the "delete" button.
The actual transaction will be factually a lot more inferior than the Indians' selling Manhattan for a handful of beads.
Is there anything like a "voluntary" theft? --- Where the victim helps the thief rob himself?
On the other hand, after all - isn't this what wardship is all about? We aren't "big enough boys and girls" to take care of ourselves and all our resources - and "patrimonious" u.s. is here to take care of us - and rape us and ours (and our resources) any which way it can. (This is NOT a laughing matter.)
Ku Ching, don't clutter up my comments section by posting articles. It's rude and it's not appreciated.
The management.
Posted by: Kathy at August 22, 2005 02:17 PMkathy, i realize it might not be clear, but except for the first paragraph quoting an email from me, the rest of the post is original words from Ku. Might have composed it in response to my message on an email list and then cross-posted it here, but it is still an original comment and not an "article" fyi.
Posted by: scott crawford at August 22, 2005 11:56 PMScott, I do realize that. Ku posted a thousand word + article in the comments right below his earlier post. I deleted it. I just wanted to let them know where it had gone and why. ;)
Posted by: Kathy at August 23, 2005 12:12 AMoh, okay, sorry about that. i'll mind my own business ;)
Posted by: scott crawford at August 25, 2005 02:58 PM"Ku Ching, don't clutter up my comments section by posting articles. It's rude and it's not appreciated.
The management.
Posted by: Kathy at August 22, 2005 02:17 PM"
Those were my comments!!! Was it an article? Might be debateable.
However, my comments are as viable and appropriate as anyone elses - especially if its the "truth" from the "other" side.
ku