Redstate

In this regard, Bruce Fein has done some remarkable work to expose the historical circumstances surrounding the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy and to prove that the U.S. owed no apology to the people of Hawaii (which it issued in 1993).  In short, Queen Lili'uokalani made a major power grab by seeking to unilaterally change the constituion and limit the legislature and the judiciary.  It was then and only then that a democratic uprising replaced the monarchy with provisional government that eventually sought admission as a State of the Union.  Incidently, 94% of Hawaii's voters approved that move.    

One could argue that the current accepted history of slavery, specifically as regards our nation, is approaching the status of a Known Fact™.  I hope that bad policy (e.g. reparations, lawsuits against corporations that had something to do with slavery way way back when, etc) doesn't spawn from this bad history.

It's far too late for me to summarize an entire book; however, Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Thomas Sowell has a compelling look at the real global history of slavery.  Conspicuously absent from much of the debate is the fact that slavery persists in Africa, the Middle East and a few other third world nations; moreover, those nations where slavery is illegal and no longer practiced were, almost without exception, cleansed of that 'peculiar institution' by the military might of Western Civilization.  It was only by the navies of Britain and the US interdicting and punishing slave traders along with the blood of Western soldiers spilled while enforcing western values that slavery was purged from our shores, from most all of Central and South America, and from Eastern Europe & the Ottoman Empire.  Were it not for the efforts of free persons in America and Western Europe slavery would have persisted longer than it did/has in every corner of the globe.

I must concur - that bad history can often preface bad policy.

~Big Tom

disclaimer - I may have made a slight mistake or been less than perfectly clear b/c of the late hour and my weary brain.  The gist of my comment should stand up to scrutiny though - that Western Civ is the only reason slavery no longer exists, but we get little, if any credit for putting a stop to it.

that we can totally credit Western civilization since slavery ceased making economic sense back around the time the rigid horse collar was invented (7th century I think) making horse labor more economical than human labor.  Industrialization of course made slavery even more of an unprofitable anachronism. Though of course Europe does get the credit for those innovations too.

As an aside the Ottomans formnally banned slavery (without Western prompting) in the 18th century, although the ban was ignored outside the core regions of the Empire, but this ban, and other reforms like the dropping of the old Dhimmi laws, was what sparked the development of Wahhabi Islam in reaction.

take it a bit easier in reproducing copyrighted material because you probably abuse the "fair use" provisions in this diary.

And please give the original source the courtesy of a link.

It is interesting to note that one of the provisions we agreed to in the Treaty of Ghent, ending the War of 1812, was to assist in the suppression of the slave trade:

Whereas the traffic in slaves is irreconcilable with the principles of humanity and justice, and whereas both His Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed that both the contracting parties shall use their best endeavours to accomplish so desirable an object.

The Senator is violating his oath on this, and any congressman who votes for it will not receive one penny from me. If we break up Hawaii over bogus pc, what is next, mark my words is everything south of Oregon, east of Louisiana and south of Colorado.

We are either Americans or we are not.

And we should not abide being broken up by anti-American tiwts like Sen. Akaka (which sounds like 'caca' in Spanish). We draw the line in the concrete now or we face a civil war in our lifetimes a la Yugoslavia, except Americans are much more bloody minded. PC is evil and dangerous. This stunt by the fool in Congress only proves it.

I can't understand why she is supporting this ridiculous measure! Why would she want to balkanize her own state?

 I would challenge anyone to prove they are 100% "native" anyway...

 Perhaps a better question is: "Who is really behind this and why?"

In short, Queen Lili'uokalani made a major power grab by seeking to unilaterally change the constituion and limit the legislature and the judiciary.

You would do well to examine just how that constitution she sought to change was arrived at in the first place.  Liluokalani was hardly a despot.

Incidently, 94% of Hawaii's voters approved that move.

Who held the franchise in Hawaii at that point?  And for informative purposes, what was the nature of the first post-annexation elected government in Hawaii?

I've been watching this bill recently, especially after somebody sent me the Senate Republican Policy Committee report on the subject.  It's at http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/Jun2205NatHawSD.pdf.  

It's my understanding that, in the end, this thing is going to get through the Senate b/c of weak GOP Senators.  So the real pressure has to come in the House.  DeLay wants to block it, but Hastert is listening to the White House (which likes the bill).  We all need to make a ruckus and let Hastert know to stay away from this thing.

The Hawaii proposal is totally anti-thetical to the American vision of governance. We are dedicated to a proposition that all men are created equal. The founders and the drafters of the Civil War Amendments were careful not to create racial classes (and before anyone disputes this with respect to slavery, GO AND READ THE CONSTITUTION and you will find no RACIAL classes). This was especially significant after the civil war with the 14th amendement since its purpose truly was to put freed blacks in the same shoes as free men and women of all races.

The hawaiian law smacks of apartheid or some of Europes dissgraceful legacy.

ALL people can be Americans and there should be no difference among us.

First, I want to let folks know I am a progressive Democrat, and a regular dKos reader. But I'm not here to be a troll, and I say all that out front so you know exactly where I'm coming from.

I have been following this bill closely for a long time, and just wanted to engage in this discussion respectfully, to help folks understand the issues a bit more. Regardless of whether one supports or opposes the bill, and for whatever reason, I think more discussion and debate about the bill and the issues and history underlying it is healthy for all.

Although I probably disagree with most folks here on many issues, you should know that a lot of us progressives in Hawaii, as well as many Native Hawaiians, also don't support this bill, even if for sometimes different reasons.  Meanwhile, of course, our Republican governor does support it. So it isn't a black and white thing.

Ironically, while Kyl's report mentions secession and some on the right have picked up on this as a reason to oppose the bill, those in Hawaii who support independence most strongly (though don't call it secession because they believe that Hawaii was never legally ceded) are vocally opposed to the bill as well. So some oppose the bill because they think it could lead to Hawaii's independence, other's oppose the bill because they think it will interfere with Hawaii's independence!  

For those wondering why Lingle is supporting it, there has been some speculation-and I can't say whether it is accurate or not, but I wouldn't be surprised-that Gov. Lingle and the administration, in lobbying Republican senators to support the bill, have been saying that it will help Lingle politically, and would bolster a run for the senate when one of the Dans retires. Maybe she's doing it because she really believes in it, but there is probably at least some political calculation, even if it is just for her gubernatorial reelection campaign next year.

Also, another ironic twist in all of this is that this bill is in large part a response to a case that went before the Supreme Court in 2000, Rice v. Cayetano, which was challenging the Hawaiian-only voting for the quasi-state agency the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The state lost, and voting was opened up to everyone. But guess who argued the case for the state, in support of restricted voting, before the Supreme Court? None other than John G. Roberts, Jr. If this bill does pass, it will surely end up in the courts, and likely make its way to the SC. Ironic if Roberts ends up on the bench to hear the case.

A couple other points. The WSJ cites this recent poll that shows 67% opposed to the bill, but that is erroneous. Setting aside the issue of potential bias in the way the questions were phrased, in fact, 67% percent of respondents to this particular question said they were opposed to the bill, but only 41% of respondents to the poll overall said they were opposed. 39% responded to the poll but gave no response to this question. So it is a completely inaccurate interpretation of the poll results to just throw out the 39% who didn't answer this question at all and then with the subsample of those who did answer say that 67% of Hawaii's people are opposed to the bill. Again, I'm not in favor of the bill, so I would not mind the opposed being high, but I think we are all better off to have a more realistic interpretation of what the poll actually said.

Finally, I have to respectfully disagree with Nashoba's comment re Bruce Fein's work re the history circa 1893. The overwhelming preponderance of historical evidence, including extensive primary source documentation, is that the U.S. did act unjustifiably and played an illegal role in the so-called overthrow of the legitimate Hawaiian government, and that the overthrow was opposed by the overwhelming majority of the population of the islands. The arguments to counter this are rather thin. We can disagree on what the ramifications of that should have been throughout history and should be today, but you get on very shaky ground if you try to argue that the U.S. had no role in the overthrow, or that it was supported by the population.  I have here some excerpts from a letter by the Secretary of State and an address by the President at the time that show quite convincingly, to me, that after extensive investigation the U.S. took responsibility at the time for its wrongdoing and acknowledged it fully, and recognized that the people of Hawaii were overwhelmingly opposed to the overthrow. So to me, despite what I see as Fein's revisionist efforts, there isn't much foundation in trying to rehash that argument 112 years later.

Now for a bit of shameless but hopefully useful self-promotion... For those who are interested in more background on the bill, I invite you to visit my blog where I have been following it for almost two years now. I'm sure you won't agree with all of my analysis and commentary on the issue, but I have tried to provide a clearinghouse of links to news articles and other items related to the bill, linking to and synopsizing all sides of the argument, so that while I do share my own opinions, I'm also giving folks a useful resource to be able to research for themselves to understand the issues in more depth and make up their own minds. I hope folks here find it useful.

Roberts would have to recuse himself having been an advoctate for one side, even though it means nothing ideologically that he represented the nativists standing alone. Trial lawyers will represent anyone. I know. I'm a recovering example!

But that's a minor triviality.

This law reeks. The whole idea of racial-blood purity reeks. And the word games of independance v. secession is just that, a word game meaning nothing.

This pc crap from the children of the 60's (I'm 42 and so was educated before the college of the 60's took over. And thank god for that reagan generation of Gen x'ers that seem to have so much sense, other wise... but I digress) is responsible for this and it must be utterly and unequivocally denounced.

It amazes me how these people that tried to pigyback on MLK Jrs. cause just to stay out of Vietnam are now the biggest racists in the USA.

Its pure racism!! What else?

This smacks of the one drop rule and the 1/17th to forbid inter-racial marriage stuff.

We probably made a mistake with all the reseravtion treaties anyway, although I realize that was more compassionate that further slaughter when the defeated tribes refused to assimilate.

But for a group to try and devolve down to the level of a defeated nation? I'm sorry folks. This is simply wrong.

The whole question of legality is moot. And % support in the population is moot.

See Lincoln and the 500,00 dead for reference. Thomas jefferson argued along with John C. Calhoun for nullification and the right of a state to leave the union and the constitution did not forbid it. But we now have the Lincoln precedent!!

Hawaii has been a state since 1959. And we have had the income tax since 1916.

Both of these may have had legal problems in ratification or other legalities.

But earth to hawaiian blood purifiers!!! You are Americans. Love it or leave it or pick your Gettysburg!!

and inevitably...Appomatox.

The only remaining question will be if a 21st century equivalent of the KKK usurps the flag your brave warriors fight under and if it later gets called the hawaiian swastika!

Seriously folks.

No alohas allowed.

My state tried it.... and the Sherman burned it to the ground.

Stars and Stripes forever.

One thing just to clarify, the Akaka bill is about a domestic dependent nation, and though they try to say it is a political definition, it is about "Native Hawaiians" with native meaning indigenous, aboriginal, not native-born. One of the arguments that is made in Kyl's report which i agree with is that the Hawaiian kingdom was a multi-racial country, with citizens who were naturalized from all of the world, and anyone born in the country was a citizen regardless of race. People of all races enjoyed civil and political rights, including the right to vote and participate in government. So in 1893, it was not a "Native Hawaiian government," and that is one of the big problems with the Akaka bill (and the 1993 apology bill), trying to say it is a political definition based on the overthrow, but it is not consistent with Hawiian history.

Those who support independence, on the other hand, generally speak in terms of Hawaiian nationality or citizenship, which is totally independent of race. They advocate an inclusive multi-racial national population that is consistent with Hawaii's history, and not based on race. One can certainly argue against independence for other reasons, but I just want folks to understand that there is an important distinction here, and the Akaka bill is really a separate argument from independence, the latter having little or nothing to do with race.

Thats what Ft Sumter was about too. A new nation: the Confederate States of America. No blood tests either.

You said:

" it is about "Native Hawaiians" with native meaning indigenous, aboriginal, not native-born."

Ok, now. I really DON't want to get into this because its just all pc crap, but "indigenous" and  "aboriginal" vs. "native-born."???

Sorry, I think we need to stick with "dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal!!"

I looked at the WSJ article (I'm a big shot paid subscriber. Heck man I'm a repub!!) and it does speak of:

1. "people who identify themselves as native Hawaiians, aka "Kanaka Maoli."

and

2. "Just who, exactly, are Native Hawaiians? Because of a high rate of intermarriage between the state's various ethnic and racial groups -- Polynesians, Japanese, Chinese, whites -- there are almost no "pure-blooded" Native Hawaiians left. The 400,000 figure cited above is a product of the U.S. Census, in which people self-select their identity. By what formula are we now to ascertain who really is a Native Hawaiian and who is just writing himself into an entitlement? The idea of the U.S. government devising a precise racial test -- will 1/128th "Native Hawaiian" do, or does it have to be at least 1/16th? -- has unpleasant connotations, to say the least."

Come on now. This is America circa 2005.

Six score and ten years ago our forefathers brought forth on this continent... (oh well, forget the continent part!!!!!!!)

This ain't gone fly. They may as well get them some flags from Stuckey's down here in jawja that say:

"Hell no, we ain't forgot 1865" and change the year to 1893, buy some moonshine whiskey and marry cousins till they slobber all over themselves,

because please, please tale it from a survivor of THE WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION.

IT AIN'T GONE FLY.

Heck, since 1865, we beat Hitler and the USSR.

Native Hawaiians? Quicker than Granada!!!!

Hawaiian independence is based on a single false premise. It is that since the Hawaiian revolution of 1893 was illegal under previous Hawaiian law, all subsequent events were illegal.

Unfortunately for the Hawaiian separatists, international law for the legality of a government is not based on the laws of the deposed government.  All revolts are illegal under the laws of the nations who have to deal with them. The Cuban Revolution was illegal according to Fulgencio Batista. The Russian Revolution of 1917 was illegal according to the Czar of Russia as well. The resulting governments were still legal under international law.

The legality of a government is based on international recognition of the new government.  Other nations (including the USA and the UK) recognized the Hawaiian Republic which took power in 1893 and the actions it took as a government (including giving sovereignty to the USA) is legal under international law.

The Hawaiian separatists ignore this point (including Scott's Hawaiian Independence Blog) and spin the fact that the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists.  It is an interesting fantasy but not one supported by international law.  (Which is why the UN, World Court, and the French Media are not all over the USA on this issue.)

Hawaii is 100 percent American.  Defeat this racist bill.  And ignore the Hawaiian separatists.  They would never win an independence vote in Hawaii.  (And this is why they will not try to put this on the ballot. They would lose big and they know it. So instead the yell occupation and spin other insane anti-American nonsense.)

"Native Hawaiians? Quicker than Granada!!!!"

But what if they hire Magnum, P.I.?

Hi Ken! Only a matter of time till you followed me over here :)

BTW, I'm not trying to win any arguments here, I'm just trying to give folks some insight into the issue, regardless of whether one agrees or not. Take it or leave it.

But yes, please do ignore us. For as long as you can. That's good advice.

If and when Hawaii regains its independence, that means two less reliably Dem seats in the senate and house! Heh.

or, bring in Arnold.

good one Neil.

Aside from all the excellent points you made, it's obvious the playing the "victim game" pays well. We've seen how Churchill played the native American game as an affirmative action faker to his own advantage - and he's probably no more native American than Vladimir Putin. With the Hawaii game look soon for casinos, tax free cigarettes, aloah reservations, and prime real estate transfers. Only in America! (Or what used to be).

a horse with a thumb?

Could it be that in addition to the descent into national weakness that led to the attacks on 9/11, President Clinton's legacy will also include institutionalized racial conflict in the paradise otherwise know as Hawaii?  Not that racial strife was unknown there, but President Clinton and his Congress seem to have given it something to hang its rhetoric on by a questionable admission regarding diplomacy in the 19th century.

Neither Clinton nor his Congress seem to have been aware of either the law of unintended consequences or of the adage to "let sleeping dogs lie."

We must hope that the present Congress doesn't let the nonsense go any further.

But let's assume you are correct.  Who cares?  If the Queen at all sought to assume powers properly allocated to other branches of government (which you and later commentators have not disputed) and that led to certain amounts of domestic unrest, then isn't it a bit unfair to blame the U.S., which the authors of the 1993 apology and most Native Hawaiian recognition supporters routinely do?  My point is that the history was mixed, and that the Blame America crowd often overlooks the nuances as to what happened in 1893.  

I never said that U.S. officials involved in 1893 acted completely by book and with legitimate authorization by the President of the United States to use the marines.  The "revisionist" Fein merely makes the case that there was a whole lot more going on in Hawaii then "the west" (embodied by the U.S.) seeking to expand its imperial empire.  

But Lincoln wasn't going for it. We have the cannonball scars on capitol buildings in SC to prove it.

The matter is settled. We are one people (except for the grandfathered and treatied in reservations of defeated nations).

The only "natives" now are native Americans.

Unless one wants to read Hemingway and travel to Spain as an ex-patriot.

but rather trying to have it both ways:  To still keep Hawaii.  While aknowledging that it was taken illegally.

You may wish to read the following: http://www.hawaii-nation.org/legal.html

Worse?  The US had the chance to annex Hawaii twice and both times it failed in Congress, so at no point did the US take legal formal possession of the islands.

Sure we could ignore this and just leave the sleeping dog lie there.. but you see I have a problem in letting a wrong continue to perpetuate itself because people are to lazy to fix it.

If we were in the wrong in taking Hawaii we must give it back.  Honor demands it.  To say other whise to advocate allowing a car thief to keep your car if he has had over a certain amount of time.

Restore the country, and if then the people of the newly restored nation decide that they want to join the US?  You do it right this time.  Odds are pretty good that they will.

I think we should make the barbarians give Gallia back to Rome. Render unto Caesar, and all that. And then we sell your place back to the Indians for twenty-four bucks, and have them turn it into a casino... where everybody smokes.

Well that certainly is quite absurd of you.

If the acquisition of Hawaii was illegal, and it appears that it was, we are obligated to put it right.  Now if your parents didn't raise you to step up and do the right thing, even when it was tough, I am sad for you.

Is it really to much to ask that the US government abide by its' treaty obligations?  I mean, afterall read article VI, treaties are part of the "supreme law of the land".  If we can't rely upon our government to follow the law, how can we rely upon it to enforce it?

We are not talking about cheating Indians out of their land here, we are talking about the illegal aborption of a globally recognized government who had treaties and embassies with most of the great powers of the day.  And that includes the US, we had a diplomatic mission there, as did the Germans, French and British.  And we did have a treaty with the Kingdom of Hawaii that guarenteed their independence.

So, to not try to put this right is to say that the word of the US is not worth the paper it is printed on.

Is that really what you are trying to say?

Well that certainly is quite absurd of you.

Of course it is. I was illustrating absurdity by being absurd.

I do not live in Hawaii. Nor, by all accounts, do you. And we should not be entertaining ourselves at the crack of dawn by flippantly expatriating a million-some people in order to form a perfect snark. I say this knowing full well that your proposal would eliminate not one, but two Democratic Senators, as well as the ghost of Patsy Mink. It would probably do something to Bob and Elizabeth Dole as well, although we can't be sure what.

back to its absud extreme to the Tower of Babel and give all nations back to the 1st scattered ancestor! Brilliant analogy my dittohead friend!

Non-native settlers summoning landing parties of US Marines on then-foreign territory is "domestic unrest"?  Come now.  You know not of what you speak.

It would be wasting valuable time on nonsense.

The definition of "native" in this context is pre-1778 when Captain James Cook of the British Royal Navy showed up.  So the settlers could be "non-native" and yet be pretty well established as proper Hawaiians with a justified expectation that the crown not act outside the bounds of the Constitution.  Many of these settlers formed the famed Committee on Public Safety, ie DOMESTIC UNREST.  

You may want to be aware of this strongly worded commentary in today's Washington Times by the Republican AG of Hawaii Mark Bennett, attacking Bruce Fein's earlier commentary there.

Purposeful ignorance, something else.

I will read his piece.  However, just because he is Republican doesn't mean he is conservative.  

just because someone is a Dem doesn't mean they are liberal/progressive. And I don't know his politics. I was only pointing out that this is a debate within the party.