Hawaiian Sovereighnty Seekers Take Over Palace and "Set Up" Government

[Makalakumu]

http://www.twincities.com/national/ci_9109968?source=email

HONOLULU—A Native Hawaiian group that advocates sovereignty briefly occupied the grounds of a historic palace in downtown Honolulu on Wednesday, saying it would carry out the business of what it considers the legitimate government of the islands.


Unarmed security guards from the Hawaiian Kingdom Government group blocked all gates to the grounds of the palace, which is adjacent to the state Capitol. They did not enter the building itself.

After several hours, the protesters agreed to reopen the gates but said they would remain on the grounds until early evening and return Thursday. No arrests had been made as of mid-afternoon.

Laura Thielen, state land director who oversees the palace area, said some of the protesters could still be charged.

"This is public property and they can't block public access," she said.
Protest leaders had said they were prepared to be arrested and would go peacefully.

Mahealani Kahau, elected "head of state" of the group years ago, said the organization doesn't recognize Hawaii as a U.S. state but would keep the occupation peaceful.

"The Hawaiian Kingdom Government is here and it doesn't plan to leave. This is a continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom of 1892 to today," Kahau said.
The group is one of several Hawaiian sovereignty organizations in the islands, which became the 50th U.S. state in 1959.

What rationale does the US claim for occupying and imperialising this sovereign nation? How much traction do these Hawaiian separatist groups actually have? Will the US ever lose its 50th state?

 

[Big Don]

http://www.twincities.com/national/ci_9109968?source=email



What rationale does the US claim for occupying and imperialising this sovereign nation? How much traction do these Hawaiian separatist groups actually have? Will the US ever lose its 50th state?

Just ONE thing:
That is how nations get new territory, with very few exceptions (Alaska, The Louisiana Purchase (of lands, btw, conquered by the French) and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, all of which, btw, were purchased by the US)
England never bought Ireland, Scotland or Wales, they CONQUERED, that is how nations get bigger, it always has been. It is an accepted, if lamentable fact.
Incidentally, I found this:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The precipitating event for the overthrow of the Monarchy and Queen Lili'uokalani was her proposed new Constitution. Among other things, Queen Lili'uokalani's Constitution would have restored to her the power to appoint the House of Nobles, and to veto Constitutional amendments.[/FONT]

Yes, it is nicer to buy, but, if you think every resident of the lands involved in the purchases listed above were asked their opinion, you are nuts.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Will they wrest control of Hawaii? Well they'd better be insanely lucky as well as insanely brazen, is all I got to say..............

 

[mrhnau]

They have just about the same chance as the Native American "coup" up in the Dakotas. If they do anything more than talk, I think the US would come down hard. While just talking, and not doing much, it will probably just be brushed aside as the novelty goes away... This kind of reminds me of some of the militia groups in the continental 48.

 

[Makalakumu]

What if the US government collapses financially and law and order becomes tenuous? What then?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Personally, I wish them luck in restoring their independance. They just need to remember what happened the last time a sovern nation tried to remove itself from the forced Union.

 

[Twin Fist]

the economy of hawaii depends on tourism. I imagine that calm heads will remind these people of that fact. Not to mention the income from the military bases..........

 

[CoryKS]

What rationale does the US claim for occupying and imperialising this sovereign nation?

Possession.

How much traction do these Hawaiian separatist groups actually have?

None at all.

Will the US ever lose its 50th state?

Only if the US decides to give it away.

 

[CuongNhuka]

There are similar thoughts about the CSA, Texas, and California (ie, we went in and took over a sovereign country). There was even a militant group that tried to "liberate" Texas, like 30 years ago.

 

[MA-Caver]

Fact that the U.S. has a major military base established on the islands the separatist group hasn't much chance at all really. And as pointed out tourist dollars are also at stake because tourist dollars means tourist taxes.
It's a nice idea because it wasn't the white man's land to begin with anyway.

 

[Nolerama]

I think it's healthy to protest your government, and even offer an alternative. Considering this group is only one of five separatist groups, I don't see them making any huge breakthroughs towards independence.

Stuff like this is a reminder that the government is there (theoretically) because we voted them in. The peaceful manner in which they protested is a testament to that American Right to freedom of protest.

 

[mrhnau]

If I recall correctly, doesn't Quebec frequently vote for succession from Canada? It's always a "no", but I seem to recall hearing that.

I'm not sure how the US would react to putting succession on a ballot, but it would make it a lot more difficult for the Feds to come down hard on them.

 

[Tez3]

Although we have the European community the wish of the people seems to be towards having smaller countries or communities rather than big nations which I think is interesting as you'd imagine the bigger your nation the more protected you'd feel. Europe and Britain is evolving into many small states allied together rather than big countries.
BTW Scotland and Wales have their own governments/assemblies now, Northern Ireland may follow.
Would Americans prefer their State to be a country and separate from the other states perhaps though in something like the European community or do they really want to stay as one big country? I'm just curious no political or other motive behind my question!

 

[CoryKS]

Would Americans prefer their State to be a country and separate from the other states perhaps though in something like the European community or do they really want to stay as one big country? I'm just curious no political or other motive behind my question!

I like it the way it is, personally. But it's clear to see that there are widening gaps in our cultural unity, and I don't know how much longer we can remain as a single logical entity. There are certainly communities that I don't consider "one of my own" based on their actions over the last few years.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Although we have the European community the wish of the people seems to be towards having smaller countries or communities rather than big nations which I think is interesting as you'd imagine the bigger your nation the more protected you'd feel. Europe and Britain is evolving into many small states allied together rather than big countries.
BTW Scotland and Wales have their own governments/assemblies now, Northern Ireland may follow.
Would Americans prefer their State to be a country and separate from the other states perhaps though in something like the European community or do they really want to stay as one big country? I'm just curious no political or other motive behind my question!

That's the way it was intended originally. The idea has been distorted over the last 100 or so years. The concept of individual states as countries was a major component to our civil war in the 1860's.
In the case of Hawaii, the nation became a subject state of the US under duress through gunboat diplomacy with a gun to the head of it's ruler. Some might consider that wrong.

 

[Big Don]

Would Americans prefer their State to be a country and separate from the other states perhaps though in something like the European community or do they really want to stay as one big country? I'm just curious no political or other motive behind my question!

As a Californian I have to answer with a resounding GOD NO!
The ONLY thing keeping the assorted fruits and nuts™ from completing the utter ruination of what used to be the sixth largest economy in the world is the US Federal laws they are forced to comply with.
San Fransisco, one of the US's strategic port cities wanted to ban the US Navy a few years ago... Imagine if Southhampton had banned the Royal Navy in WWII...

 

[Tez3]

Big Don, it was a question born from mere curiousness so you really don't have to shout .
Southampton? I think you mean Portsmouth or Plymouth.

 

[Big Don]

Big Don, it was a question born from mere curiousness so you really don't have to shout .
Southampton? I think you mean Portsmouth or Plymouth.

Southampton came up when I googled "biggest English port"... I was in a rush and my google fu was weak...

 

[thardey]

Although we have the European community the wish of the people seems to be towards having smaller countries or communities rather than big nations which I think is interesting as you'd imagine the bigger your nation the more protected you'd feel. Europe and Britain is evolving into many small states allied together rather than big countries.
BTW Scotland and Wales have their own governments/assemblies now, Northern Ireland may follow.
Would Americans prefer their State to be a country and separate from the other states perhaps though in something like the European community or do they really want to stay as one big country? I'm just curious no political or other motive behind my question!

That's actually a large part of this "Great Experiment" of democracy as we've designed it. That was a huge part of the debates between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists when the Constitution was being written, and ultimately accepted.

Many from the South (read: Dixieland) say that the Civil war was fought over that question, not slavery. In fact, many of today's biggest emotionally-charged political debates come down to whether certain issues should be decided on a federal level, or a state level. (Roe V. Wade being one of them).

Are the states allowed to govern themselves, with a minimum of involvement from other states, or a federal set of laws, or is this supposed to be "one big country"?) Are governors supposed to be like "mini-presidents" or do we just have one?

In the name "The United States of America" is the focus on the "United" or the "States"? Under the Articles of Confederation (our first Constitution) each state was almost a small country unto itself. The problem, like you pointed out, was that it left little sense of security. A bigger country is safer. The problem with one big country is that only a few powerful people really have any say. This is counter to the experiment of self-rule, so the Bill of rights was introduced as a way to protect the little guy. (Grudgingly, BTW, from the framers of the Constitution.)

One Federal Government has one Federal army, but Individual States have a better chance to govern the people involved. This question (IMHO) is actually a root of many of the political arguments you've seen, and (metaphorically) seem to have scratched your head over. Does the Federal Government have the right to ban certain weapons, or does each individual state? Which presidential candidate will give power to the States, and which will give power to the Federal System? Are the police bound by a Federal Standard, or do they work within the culture of each community? Should you expect the same thing from a New York Cop and an Oregon one? If you break each governing rule down into small areas, what will keep them accountable?

Yep, these are all the questions of the Great Experiment. Sorry I don't have a simple answer for ya.

 

[thardey]

Have a P.S. to add:

If we break down too far into our respective states, then we have less influence in the rest of the world. Say only Texas, Georgia, and South Carolina agree to go to war for some future cause. The rest of the states don't. Well, then, how would that work out?

On the other hand, many States don't want to be involved in the war we're in, but they're getting drug into it, and the hatred and condemnation from the rest of the world, because all the states are in this together.

Could you imagine terrorists claiming "down with California, but we like Ohio!" Many people in the world are mad at Bush, but how do they feel about Kulongoski? (Our governor.)

So there's strengths and weaknesses there, too. It's all part of the experiment.