Talk:Legal status of Hawaii/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Detailed concerns

Jere: 1) Characterizing those who believe that the State of Hawaii is legitimate as requiring some sort of rationalization that laws were not violated immediately puts people on the defensive. It would be just as POV to put something in like, "The legal status of Hawaii is a subject of dispute between every nation that ever had diplomatic relations with the Kingdom, Republic, Territory and State of Hawaii, and those who believe that every official recognition of the overthrow, annexation, and state admission by every nation of the world, and every international world body is a violation of international and domestic law". As difficult as it may be to accept, we must recognize that the legal status of Hawaii, in regards to international and national law, has been settled. Every nation with diplomatic ties recognized the Provisional Government within 2 days of the overthrow, as well as upon the proclamation of the Republic of Hawaii, as well as the annexation of Hawaii. The Queen herself both surrendered to the Provisional Government (blaming the U.S., but addressing it to the PG), as well as officially abdicated after the failed rebellion of 1895. The Queen went further and used the U.S. judicial system to fight for personal ownership of the crown lands, and lost in 1910.

Laualoha:continuation of economi trade (which is common to most coups, especially those with coveted resources), and self-evaluation by the U.S. donʻt exactly add up to proof of your point.Laualoha 15:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Jere:It wasn't just economic trade, it was the treaty obligations, responsibilities and rights that were continued. --JereKrischel 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

2) The Bayonet Constitution (as it was called by its detractors), did not affect the governmental powers of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a nation - it affected the governmental powers of the monarch, and limited the electorate to non-asian rich people.

Laualoha:and thatʻs different from affecting the governmental powers of the kingdom because...Laualoha 15:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Jere:Because the Kingdom, as a government, still had all the powers it had before. It could still engage in diplomatic relations, negotiate treaties, and act as an international state.

What you might be referring to is the Reciprocity Act of 1874, in which both the United States and the Kingdom's powers to give special deals to other countries was limited (limiting the power of their governments). --JereKrischel 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

3) Iolani palace was not invaded by armed sugar planters, and the U.S. peacekeepers who landed during the overthrow took no part in any hostilities at all. Iolani palace was surrendered unconditionally by the Queen to the Provisional Government run by the Committee of Safety backed by the Honolulu Rifles (who had previously in 1887, with no U.s. peacekeepers on shore, shown their independent effectiveness by forcing the new constitution, as well as their actions in 1889 to singlehandedly put down the Wilcox Rebellion).

Laualoha:um, some of those "PG troops", and probably the guys with the cannon, rifles & sandbags (Iʻd call that armed, but maybe thatʻs just me), were definitely American sugar planters. The involvement of Minister Stevens & the marines is quite well documented too, whether you wanna call them "peacekeepers" or not.Laualoha 15:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Jere:How can you assert that any of the specific members of the Honolulu Rifles were "definitely sugar planters"? Do they have "sugar planter" badges?

Also, the involvement of Minister Stevens and the U.S. peacekeepers has been clearly documented as being entirely neutral. See the Morgan Report. --JereKrischel 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

4) The Ku'e petitions you refer to contain many names listed, but not all of them are signatures. A contemprary analysis of the petitions found them rife with fraud, and this can be verified by examining the blatant forgeries in the images of the petition online. Furthermore, a petition with 5 times as many signatures, gathered in just one day, in favor of statehood is not mentioned.

Laualoha:Um, I donʻt agree that Thurston's "contemporary analysis" was accurate (if it existed at all), and I definitely think "rife with fraud" is incorrect. All indications that I know point to the citizenry (including naturalized non-natives) as strongly supporting the Kingdom, with the exception of the very rich non-natives at the top of the economic scale, who wanted a better deal.

Jere:You can find it here at the University of Hawaii. Please feel free to cite your indications specifically. --JereKrischel 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

5) Please cite any evidence for vociferous protests during the 1959 vote - 94% of the population voted in favor, and I have found no record of any significant protests of the vote at that time.

Laualoha:Iʻll get these - hey, how do you cite a non-online source, anyway? Mahalo, Laualoha 15:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

With the following code:

<ref>{{cite book | author=Andrade Jr., Ernest | title=Unconquerable Rebel: Robert W. Wilcox and Hawaiian Politics, 1880-1903| publisher=University Press of Colorado| year=1996 | id=ISBN 8-87081-417-6|pages=p147}}</ref>

--JereKrischel 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Jere: 6) A great deal of attention was paid to the Hawaiian Revolution, by many parties - in the end, the arguments of the pro-monarchy folks were found wanting. Grover Cleveland sent Blount to investigate, and upon his initial information, demanded the reinstatement of the Queen. Dole refused. The Morgan Report was commissioned by Congress to investigate further, and the royalist position was found to be exaggerated, and the U.S. was cleared of any misconduct. The queen further protested the recognition of the Republic of Hawaii, and was rebuffed by all governments she approached, after much attention and due consideration. The United Nations specifically took Hawaii off the list of non-self-governing territories after statehood, and the 1983 Native Hawaiians Study Commission report also found, after paying significant attention, the claims of royalists to be unfounded. There has been plenty of attention paid over the years, it just hasn't turned out to the benefit of those who believe the royalist position.

Laualoha:Well I agree that no country found it in their busy schedule to go to bat against America for an overthrown, brown, female monarch at that time, especially as everyone knew just how coveted Pearl Harbor was by the U.S. military, and what they would probably do to keep it. I mean, even now, few countries have the guts to openly criticize "Uncle Sam". As for the U.N. List thing, you are incorrect. The U.N. removed Hawaiʻi from the list the same year statehood was enacted (1959), which hardly gives an impoverished people time to raise funds for a plane ticket to Switzerland, much less present the case.Laualoha 15:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Jere:Pearl Harbor was already leased to the United States as per the Reciprocity Treaty.

The U.N. removed Hawaii the from the non-self-governing territories list the same year that over 90% of the people there voted for statehood. Even rich people, with money to head to Switzerland to lobby against removing it from the list, would have no case to present. --JereKrischel 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

7) As I mentioned earlier, there is no "Anti-Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement". The legal claims of sovereignty proponents have been consistently rejected by every body which has examined them, from the international community, to the courts, to the various congressional commissions and investigations. As strongly as one may hold the position of the sovereignty movement, it is an undeniable truth that such a position is "fringe".

Laualoha:"undeniable truth"? Pleeease read your comment above yourself. Sounds kinda scary, doncha think? Laualoha 15:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Jere:Yes, it does sound kind of scary. I may not be expressing myself well - I want to clearly indicate to you that the assertion that the hawaiian sovereignty movement is fringe, and can be characterized as being an extreme minority, is a statement of observation, not of merit. This is not "hasty generalization", because I'm not asking you to derive a conclusion from the generalization (that is to say, I'm not asking you to believe that if something is extreme minority, therefore it is wrong).

I understand that as a political movement, hawaiian sovereignty activists want to make the world believe it is not an extreme minority, so that it gains the credibility that comes with hasty generalization (that is to say, they want people to believe that if something is a large minority, or a majority, therefore it is right). Wikipedia is not a platform for the political goals of an extreme minority movement. --JereKrischel 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, I don't mean to say that there isn't room for improvement to the article, and your input is certainly welcome. If there is a certain phrase or sentence that you see as POV pushing from the other side, let's work together to make it more neutral. --JereKrischel 03:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)