Talk:Home Rule Party of Hawaii

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Hawaii Mid‑importance

	Hawaii portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biase

I think that this is a biased article. Especially this paragraph:

"The Home Rule Party proved to be ineffective in the Territorial Legislature. During the period that they controlled both chambers of the legislature, chaos ensued.[citation needed] They refused to speak English and debated vehemently in the Hawaiian language. They attempted to pass bills granting blanket amnesties to native Hawaiian prisoners, tried to grant physician licenses to kahuna and tried to lower the US$3 tax on female dogs — a delicacy for some."

Why shouldn't newly annexed Hawaiian politicians debate in their Hawaiian majority language(and speak in a foreign language instead), reject their traditional healers(and not make them officially recognised) and not eat dogs(and try to lower taxes on them)? Those are no clues for chaos for me. I think that those informations relate to sources with the then usual white superiority mindset. Was there a real chance for independent policies without the support from european/american landowners etc. that overtrew the old government? 01:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.169.223.192 (talk)

I agree regarding the language issue. Why should Hawaiians in Hawaii have been expected to speak English? This is/was Hawaii, not England or the US mainland. Have Puerto Ricans ever been expected to conduct their business in English rather than Spanish? What is also not clear here is why they (the Hawaiians) were not able to pass these bills if they "controlled both chambers of the legislature." Sounds to me that "chaos" was defined as such by anti-Hawaiian racists -- but better to research that point and see where it came from. {66.162.249.170 (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

You're right. Sources have been biased about Hawaiian political leadership in this period. See:

Williams, Ronald, Jr. (2015). "Race, Power, and the Dilemma of Democracy: Hawaiʻi's First Territorial Legislature, 1901". The Hawaiian Journal of History. 49. Honolulu: Hawaiian Historical Society: 1–45. OCLC 60626541 – via Project MUSE.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Disbanding

I am questioning when the party officially disbanded since newspapers mentioned the party in the primary elections of 1914. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]