Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe confluence of two forces -- a massive military expansion in Hawai'i and Congressional legislation that will stymie the Kanaka Maoli [Native Hawaiian] sovereignty movement -- will expand and consolidate the use of Hawai'i for US empire. We are calling on the US left to join our movement opposing these threats and to add our quest for independence as a plank of the broad US left strategy for a nonimperialist America. If you support peace and justice for the United States and the world, please support demilitarization and independence for Hawai'i.
Since 1893, the United States has malformed Hawai'i into the command and control center for US imperialism in Oceania and Asia. From the hills of the Ewa district of O'ahu, the US Pacific Command -- the largest of the unified military commands -- directs troops and hardware throughout literally half the planet. Since the late nineteenth century, the US military has multiplied in our islands, taking 150,000 acres for its use, including one-quarter of the metropolitan island of O'ahu. Moreover, the National Security Administration is building a new surveillance facility nearby, not far from where urban assault brigades, called Strykers, will train for deployment throughout the world. The US Navy is also increasing training over the entire archipelago, including populated areas and the fragile northwestern whale sanctuary. This militarized occupation has a long history. Ke Awalau o Pu'uloa -- known now as Pearl Harbor -- became one of the very first overseas bases, along with Guantánamo, around the time of the Spanish-American War. We still hold much in common with prerevolution Cuba -- a sugar plantation economy and status as the playground for the rich of North America.
We have suffered from the effects of being the pawn for US wars on the world. Our family members languish from strange diseases brought by military toxins in our water and soil. Our economy is a foreign-run modern plantation serving multinational shareholders and decorated generals. We salute a foreign flag, and the education system instructs us to yearn for a distant continent called the Mainland. Tourists imbibe in sunny Waīkikī, while the beaches in the native-inhabited regions are littered with chemical munitions.
But amid our suffering, we have survived. Our tenacity and resilience have historical roots: in 1897, 95 percent of the Kanaka Maoli population signed petitions that helped to defeat a treaty to forcibly annex Hawai'i to the United States.
The last forty years have seen remarkable change for our people, through the advancement of a grassroots struggle against the political occupation and mental colonization of our homeland. We have been successful in several campaigns: in stopping the bombing of Kaho'olawe Island and Makua Valley, in revitalizing the Hawaiian language and culture in our schools and families, in returning to our indigenous spiritual practices and in making Hawaiian sovereignty a dinner-table topic and an actual possibility. These hard-fought wins are successes in the movement for self-determination and also a threat to America's use of Hawai'i as the purveyor of its empire.
It is against this backdrop that the Akaka bill (the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act) is being discussed in the halls of Congress. Named for US Senator Daniel Akaka, the bill is being promoted by Hawai'i's corporate and political elite as a vehicle for racial justice. Yet the bill would turn back one of the most important victories of the last four decades -- the rise of Hawaiian self-determination, including independence, as a political possibility -- replacing it with the extinguishment of our historic claims to land and sovereignty.
Our conundrum puts us squarely in opposition to the middle ground of American politics, which has arrived at a consensus that Hawai'i will remain a military colony of the United States. Democratic Senator Daniel Inouye is a major purveyor of pork barrel spending for military appropriations and defense contractors. All three presidential contenders have signaled their support for the Akaka bill. And while the far right wing of the Republican Party opposes the Akaka bill, both major parties have no quarrel over the continuance of the empire's use of our homeland.
In light of this American consensus on Hawai'i, we turn to our nearest political allies, US progressive movements, and seek your solidarity for our independence because it is congruent and essential to your hope for a better world. Please join us in opposing the Akaka bill and the militarization of Hawai'i, and please support Hawai'i's independence as part of your vision for a more humane United States and a more just world.
Ikaika Hussey, convenor, Movement for Aloha No ka Aina
 (MANA)
Terrilee Keko'olani, Ohana Koa/Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific
Noelani Goodyear-Kaopua, assistant professor of political
 science, University of Hawaii, Manoa
Jon Osorio, director, Center for Hawaiian Studies, University of Hawaii, Manoa
Kekuni Blaisdell, convenor, Ka Pakaukau
Andre Perez, Hui Pu
Kelii "Skippy" Ioane, Hui Pu
Kai'opua Fyfe, director, The Koani Foundation
Copyright © 2008 The Nation
67 Comments so far
Show AllI used to live in Hawaii from 1991 through 1999. My heart is totally with the Hawaii Sovereignty Movement. Imua!!
orwellWasOptimist May 8th, 2008 1:19 pm
Hard to imagine Hawaii being independent, but hey, its not a though they joined the US voluntarily. Secede!
And, would anyone support California seceding, too?
Yes, ABSOLUTELY!!
Forgive me for smiling. But will the 'Free Tibet' protestors will always remain quiet on 'Free Hawaii'. I'm willing to bet they will. Why? How about 'racism' and an anti-China bent...?
As for the citizens of Hawaii voting for statehood; who did the voting? The indigenous peoples or the johnny-come-latelies' from the mainland who outnumbered the indigenous peoples?
Interestingly, that's exactly what the US likes to accuse China of doing in Tibet ie. Han Chinese are sent into Tibet en masse to overwhelm the Tibetans (a claim that's now being brought into question).
Read about the annexation of Hawaii in Stephen Kinzer's book "Overthrow". It's quite a sad but fascinating story.
Also, see Democracy Now! | Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq.
That's your opinion. I've lived in many foreign lands from three months time to as long as two years. I gave my opinion. It's alright if you disagree. I was always delighted to return to America however, even though I very often enjoyed my stays in other countries and loved the people of other ocuntries. We are all the same you know.
I will say we are heading down-hill pretty fast however.
"But most places are not near as good as America. ___ Not even close"
I would have to respectfully disagree, KEM. I haven't been all over the world, but where I have been, it has been my observation that they were all as good as here, just different.
Anyone wanting to leave America know where the doors are. But most places are not near as good as America. ___ Not even close, unless one is a multi-millionaire and money is no object. When we have our depression and American cash is totally worthless, Americans with American money will not be welcome anyplace.
~JOHN R~, it wasn't just Flordia where Al Gore and John Edwards lost. Edward's home state of N.Carolina for one prime example. Florida being stolen didn't help, but it was not the only reason they lost to Bush.
The functions of government are already in the hands of corporations and the military that inforces those policies. Decisions are made in boardrooms and think tanks and any thoughts outside this are forbidden, hince your post.
Treefrog,
FOX News focusing on non-issues like some lefties' obsession with a growing list of other lefties wanting to leave the USA is precisely how elections are narrowly lost to Republicans again and again. Most of us are staying, and we don't have to give the government to corporations to appease a few who want to bark about leaving.
Daniel David
People wanting to leave the U.S. is much more than a negative distraction, for some it is an imperitive. I am pretty sure you don't understand why the list gets longer every day.
Gore couldn't have won in 2000 because Jeb Bush had hundreds of thousands of votes thrown in the garbage. He used subterfuge to reinstate Jim Crow in Florida. In actuality, the center always wins free and fair elections. The center in contemporary America is against the illegal conquest of Iraq, against the unchecked power of the unitary executive, for universal healthcare and sensible sustainable economics. Now, only if their voices could matter. If the Republicans get away with the same gross manipulations (crimes against democracy), then the center grows in its impotence.
Incidentally, I'd like to move to Vermont and help to foment the successionist movement there. Then, I could vacation in a Hawaii restored to its original stewards and primordial beauty.
RadicalConfucian,
Since you asked why I believe we should avoid fringe issues,
(independent Hawaii, bashing Walmart, worshipping Code Pink) in order to avoid upsetting the center right in election years, here is the answer:
Because WE CAN EASILY LOSE EVERYTHING. The "right" has a very large megaphone of money and media infrastructure used to run ads that twist the truth. Harry and Louise of the 90s were an example.
Rev. J. Wright of the present is another example. Barack Obama's "bitter" comment is another. Michelle Obama not being "proud" enough of her country is another. War protests at BERKELEY are another. Al Gore over-doing gun control in 2000 is another. You cannot win elections for the left without the center believing the left is sensible----not loony. Every time a "fringe" issue is over-emphasized you run risk of losing further the Supreme Court. As you lose further the Supreme Court, corporate megaphones are further enabled.
Imagine, for instance, how much better off we'd be if Al had muted his gun control mouthing, had won 2000 as a result (which he would have), and both Roberts and Alito had been avoided and liberals were in their place. This stuff matters. SOME in Hawaii wanting to part with the USA is a NEGATIVE DISTRACTION of no import whatever to the whole of America in an election year. But it's risky dumb to encourage this stuff to a level of national debate.
"And, would anyone support California seceding, too?"
It can't...[like many-other states, its part of Spanish/Mexican Sovereign-territory, which was also 'illegally and immorally acquired/Conquered', and would need to subsequently Revert to them, under any/all pertaining-'Law'...].
For quite a while I have believed in the breakup of our own country into bioregions. Our country has become too powerful on the world stage. Our citizens have too little voice in our foreign policy. I had not given much thought to the status of Hawaii (which does not really fit into any bio-region). But I do believe for the sake of the planet, that the US is too big and too powerful and the citizens are too far removed from any decision-making that matters.
My regional entity would be the Pacific Northwest, including Washington, Oregon and the Northern half of California and maybe Idaho and Alaska.
As far as I am concerned, Hawaii would be welcome to join us.
I love the little people of Kaui, they are very mischievous but honored spirits.
Dang, that's five in a row. Sorry, I stop. Shit, now it's six.
Someone posted that Hawaii is an 'independent sovereign nation'. ____ Sorry not any more.
The U.N. Decolonization Committee has removed Hawaii from the United nations's list of Non-Self-Governing-Territories. Hawaii is a United States state. Like Texans say about Texas, "Love it or leave it."
Slightly off topic, but a good friend of ours, ___ Lynda Faye Kroll,___ who is a very brave and wonderful lady and a retired nurse who lives in Hawaii, has asked me to post this link whenever it is appropriate. She has been battling the military and the Hawaiian state legislature for several years and is slowly making progress.
http://www.protecthawaii.ws/page2.html
I found it. The citizens of Hawaii voted by an overwhelming 17 to 1 to be the 50th state.
However, they only had one of two choices when they voted. Either gain statehood, or remain an American territory with our military bases in command. Little choice actually, we'd still control the islands and the citizens would have NO say on how it was governed. ____ Probably still don't come to think about it.
The Island of Palmyra was exempt from statehood, as it is privately owned and no visitors allowed unless invited. It's a massive cattle ranch naturally, just what the Polanesians wanted. Wonder if that's where the Hawaiian's female garb name "Moo-Moo" originated?
I have a serious question. When Hawaii did attain statehood, how was it accomplished? Did the citizens of Hawaii vote on it? If so what percentage had to vote for statehood?
You say FREE Hawaii ~GALEN~ because what we did there is no different than what we have done in Iraq.
Well then, we can make Iraq our 51st state and stop fighting over there. We already have a police force there and we can just pretend it's anther LA, Chicago or Philly. Then the Iraqi citizens will be Americans and able to vote in our presidetial elections. First we have to send in some missionaries to straighten out their thinking and teach them how to fuck like Christians do.
Better make that Seventh Day Adventists, Baptists or one of those kind. No Catholics with priests and stuff like that.
this movement has growing roots that go deeper than most miodern system roots go.. expect a persistent rise in the hawaiian sovereignty movement that cannot be ignored. yet the military control there has little strategic respect for civilian populations, if the shit were to hit the fan, as it were. thats a linchpin that forever blocks dreams of renewed sovereignty. odd outcomes are possible here, thus its reasonable tha brahs and sistahs would want to block the Akaka bill. RE: long fight. ongoing.. as the native americans would say 300 years later, welcome to the war.
Not only should Hawaii regain its sovereignty, we should recognize Puerto Rico as the sovereign nation it rightly is. Cuba's sister island was stolen at the same time we set up the 'protectorate' for the Philippines and the 'independent constitution' for Cuba as long as they did what they were told.
The Spanish American War was a great excuse for a little 'nation building, and Hawaii served as the appetizer...
I am certainly supportive of returning California, Texas and Arizona to Mexico. Perhaps it's time we had a dose of being the 'illegal' aliens in our own land!
Of course, I have little or no power to accomplish any of this, but I do support the Hawaiian Nation at every opportunity.
As a 'haole', I've been looking for a tattoo artist to stamp "She's a Good Guy" on my forehead in hopes of not becoming one of the inadvertent first victims of the Revolution.
Up The Revolution! Viva Fidel!
Free the Cuban Five!
Way I read it, the word tribalism in the context used above was not a racial slur or a commentary on a form of government. It referred to the separatist urge to divide the world into little ethnic fiefdoms, which is divisive and destructive. The solution to the world's problems isn't more borders and more divisions. We need more unification, and the dissolving of national boundaries and the merger of more nations and people in solidarity. More nations are the last thing the world needs.
Obviously, Hawaii has problems. Reforms are needed. In a better democracy, those concerns would be addressed more easily. But realistically, given Hawaii's strategic location, the US military would find a way to locate there regardless. Even if it were still a kingdom, the US would find a way to coerce the local government to get what it wants --and the Hawaiian people would lack the rights of US citizens on top of it, making the potential abuses even worse.
The problem is militarism, the problem is abuse of power by big powerful interests. Restoring a kingdom isn't going to solve that problem. Ending conflicts and erasing divisions among nations will. Reforming capitalist economic systems will. Reverting rights to the people and away from the government and corporations will. And those are difficult things to accomplish, to be sure, an uphill battle if there ever is one.
But leaving the US is a bad, bad idea. If people are unhappy there now, wait until they see what abuses they'll suffer when they can no longer claim US citizenship. Just ask any other nation we militarily occupy what that's like. These folks will miss their congressional delegation and voice in government, however small, if they give it up. They might not like the frying pan they're in, but they'll find the fire they're trying to jump into far, far worse.
In the 1800s, the Hawaiian government was a constitutional monarchy, recognized by governments around the world as an independent sovereign nation. The Hawaiian leaders had traveled around the world, visiting heads of state on different continents.
The Hawaiian people were over 90% literate. The Queen's Palace had electricity before the White House did! The Hawaiian people NEVER signed a single treaty with the U.S. government. Thousands of Hawaiian people signed a letter to the President stating that they did not want to become part of the U.S. (this is on display at the Queen's museum in Honolulu and the signatures, thousands of them, display beautiful penmanship similar to the signatures on the U.S. Constitution.) The U.S. President, seeing this, said the U.S. would not annex Hawaii. Members of congress, in a backhanded fashion made an 'end run', so to speak, subverting the wishes of both the Hawaiian people and the President and authorized an armed militia to overthrow the Queen, who was placed under house arrest. They did this in tandem with U.S. businessmen who saw the great opportunity Hawaiian lands would give them. These businessmen became the 'five families' who have gone on to essentially control the land, water, and people in Hawaii to this day.
Under international law, to this day, Hawaii is an independent sovereign nation under a hostile military takeover. But because of the influence Washington exerts upon the United Nations, no nation will stand on the floor of the U.N. and recognize Hawaii's sovereignty.
I have visited the Hawaii islands on the first week of April. First time being there too. Wonderful place! Friendly people beautiful scenery...nothing like Hawaii in my opinion. A very memorable experience. BUT...Hawaii is SOOOOOO expensive! For a studio 4 room - would be about 1000 US Dollars each month. Expensive very expensive...
I prefer the Caribbean to Hawaii only because the Caribbean is much more cheaper overall than Hawaii is for tropical destinations - although I do respect Hawaii for what it offers.
As a longtime (non-Hawaiian) resident of the Big Island, Hawaii, I support the Hawaiian Sovereignty movement in spirit, but unless you have lived here, it is not as simple an issue as some make it.
To understand the complexities of this issue, you need to actually live here, deal with the daily life, with the mix of people, the fragile infrastructure, the isolation and not just shout FREE HAWAII.
A majority of the Hawaiians I know don't even want this.
It may be hard to picture Hawaii as independent, but only if you don't know how it was taken in the first place. It was stolen from the people, from the rulers.
They will never let you go.
Galen - >>Hawaii WAS a sovereign nation until the US overthrew and murdered it's last king, Khamehameha.<< The US did not kill the last king of Hawaii nor was he a Kamehameha. The last Kamehameha (IV) died in 1872. The last king of Hawaii was King David KalÄkaua who reigned till 1891 and his sister LiliÊ»uokalani came to the throne and ruled till overthrown by US interests in 1893. I know you get passionate, but you don't get your facts straight very often.
Daniel David, et. al, before you are too quick to dismiss this Hawaiian independence movement in the interests of the Democratic candidate winning the 08 election, let me raise an objection to your mode of thinking. It is not just here but on many other posts as well, you seem to argue that progressives pushing for "lefty" causes can upset the political middle, and even right wing, by giving grist to the right wing radical pundit mill (i.e. Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc.). I would ask you, why should we progressives even pay these nutcases any attention whatsoever? Why should they be able to set the tenor of the debate of where our democracy should be heading? Communicative rationality cannot include opinions that are so ideologically laden to be stiffling of real reasonable possibilities for progress. To help you see the error in your line of thinking consider the following thought experiment. If we lived in Nazi germany and some moderate voices in the Nazi party were pushing for the deportation rather than extermination of Jews, and you happened to feel strongly about the preservation of socialists, homosexuals, and gypsies as well, but whenever you raised your voice to voice your opinion, someone said, "Shh. Don't mention those commies, queers, and vagrants, because that will give Hitler, Goebbels, and crew material to attack our plan to save Jewish lives!"
A rather dreary situation indeed. We should not pay heed to right wing voices of extremism, and hope that by forging ahead with our liberal progressive plans for amelioration, these voices of intolerance will just fade out of existence.
If we are approaching "the end of oil" as many experts calculate, then Hawaii... that little gem so far from the US mainland will probably be gaining a lot more autonomy due to the sheer extravagance of rising oil costs. Patience, dear friends!
When I visited Hawaii a few years ago and the plane began to descend into a miraculous island world of cliffs and active volcanos, it didn't require any primitive religious understanding to SENSE how SACRED this land was. What hit me intuitively was the grotesque HUBRIS in that Japan could target such marvelous natural sanctuaries for military aggression. Now that America is running its own tests in this zone, these sacred lands, they, too are marking their fate.
This movement is righteous...FREE HAWAII!!...and how about freeing the rest of America from this imperialistic government. That would be progressive! Giving the land back to the native peoples who truly hold claim to it and actually lived in freedom. Now the term "freedom" has been so corrupted, packaged and polluted that it has lost its meaning.
"Land of the free and home of the brave." What a joke. How about land of the FEE and home of the SLAVE.
Cry for the gods, cry for the people,
Cry for the land that was taken away,
and then yet you'll find, Hawai'i.
IZ has touched my spirit with his song
. I'm with you.
According to International Law American Indian Nations are free and independent sovereigns irrespective of America's claim of plenary power. Indian Nations preexisted the Constitution and therefore remain independent sovereigns. The only thing that prevents that from being a reality is the point of a gun. So no one should excuse themselves from continuing policies of genocide. Indian land is still being stolen, Indian resources are still being stolen, Indian monies are still being stolen, Indian lives are still being lost. The continued imposition of plenary power over Indigenous Hawaiians is a violation of International Law. American imperialism and genocide, licensed by Christian beliefs in dominion, is as strong today as it ever was.
Stilba wrote:
KDoom n Gloom - Who is a racist? Do you even know what I am?
Same in the "progressive" universe as in the "conservative" universe …fall out of line and you get branded."
Stilba, you made a careless statement that is not factual. I challenged you on it. I have fought racists online for many many years. Their rhetoric has a familiar ring. No I do not know you and that is why I asked if you were racist, I did not charge you. Your own statement spoke to it. I hope you are not. The argument you pose is false. Indian Nations are sovereign governmental entities but not tribal entities.
We should let Hawaii go. Wouldn't it be nice if the change candidate had that view? And he isn't even willing to consider it.
BreeMass, I don't think anything short of a radical change in US policy is going to do a thing about the military bases in Hawaii, or elsewhere in the US. That's the thing ...a state has at least a little say, a little respect, with the federal government. Ask folks on any reservation in the US if they have ANY kind of voice in federal matters. So, I don't see any addressing that matter but in a larger, national context. A reservation representative sure as hell isn't going to have a voice like a congressman or senator (though, as we all know, this is far from enough). Still, that little voice would work for all matters, not just the military bases, and we'd still be a whole country.
As for the technical (territorial) questions you bring up, they should go to the HSM.
"What is good for the goose, is also good for the gander"
The citizens of Tejas got together and decided secession from Mexico (with lots of USA help, BTW), and were successful in forming the 'Lone Star' republic.*
The citizens of Hawaii should be able to get together and decide secession from the USA and form (again) the independent country that they were.
As someone mentioned earlier, the Constitution of the USA does NOT prohibit 'secession' and is in fact how the USA came to be, in case we have forgotten.
(* The fact that shortly thereafter Tejas became Texas, another state accepted into the USA was purely 'coincidental')
nwfisher May 8th, 2008 12:42 pm
Decided this one in 1865 guys. Entry into the United States is a one way street.
Got it in one. Don't waste your time.
ike kay,
where did you see that Hawaiians voted to join union?
Maybe only the rich white planters were franchised?
Stilba, well sorry if I jumped down your throat then. I'm confused about the idea of a new state, so can you answer a couple of questions so I can have a better idea of what you're getting at?
Does the idea of a new state address the actual concerns of the population? Hawaiian native grounds have been very adversely affected by US military operations in HI and it doesn't seem that their representation in Congress is doing much to address the issue. My understanding is that by asking for sovereignty, they are asking for the right to determine whether or not the federal govt can even place military bases on their land or in their water. If they become another state, I'm not sure they'd have any more right than they do now to keep the federal govt and their military bases off their land. Most land, even in the States, is managed by the govt, as far as I know and I'm not sure that states can necessarily keep the military out if they want. So I'm not sure forming another state would solve that issue.
Also, where would that new state be? Will we abolish the State of Hawaii and make it something else? Again, I don't think that's the issue for them. Would they get part of the current state for their new state? Which part and who will decide?
I am really curious to your opinion, not trying to be argumentative. I'm just not sure if a new state would actually solve any of the issues they bring up.
FREE HAWAI'I ! Free Louisiana ! Free Texas ! Free the Red Indians ! RETURN ALL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE RIGHTFUL OWNERS, THE RED INDIANS !
Lead the way to secession ! Some of us are ready. There is a small but growing movement in Vermont to secede.
Thank you BreeMass! If we are not all careful here, we may make progress on this issue. Figure that?
Breemass - Nope, hadn't even read your post.
As for the notion of not sharing responsibility for slavery, North American imperialist genocide, etc., ...I'm only rejecting the notion of "stolen" land (and in this specific case). I agree, we're all part of a system which is still racist, still unfair and we all deserve self-determination. Why not just ask for a seperate state?
Stilba, I'm not sure if you were responding to me, but since I'm the only one - I think - has made mention of other native nations, I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. For one, I said specifically that they are not independent nations, but suzerains and that this model, however imperfect it might be, is still a model worth looking into for the HSM and for it's supporters. I'm with you on the idea of keeping the nation together, but, as I said before, why are native Hawaiians any less deserving of self-determination than other Native American groups.
I would also like to say that the idea that since you didn't do it and neither did your ancestors means you have no responsibility in the present is a bit like saying "well, I don't have slaves, my grandparents didn't have slaves, therefore I have no responsibility for current day racism". It's disingenuous and does nothing but dismiss the valid claims native Hawaiians have to some form of self-determination. Hawaiians have valid grievances with the actions of the US government in Hawaii. I'm not saying that secession is the answer, but dismissing those grievances out of hand does nothing to actually solve the situation and in fact worsens it. If you are progressive at all, I would think that supporting some sort of attention to these grievances would be well within your purview.
kokuaguy - My friend, I'm sensitive to it or I wouldn't be wasting time here on Commondreams. Thanks for differentiating the nation-in-a-nations from the secessionists. I still think a new state is a better solution.
As for being recognized as a "nation", I can't square WHY anybody would need that. Why? What does it mean? How come every human being born in our shared empire doesn't get their own "nation" designation? What the hell makes some who have one kind of ancestor deserving of this, while all the rest a just ...plain, culture-less, pre-programmed Yankees? What are the implications, today and one hundred years from now (if Hawaii isn't under water), of setting up independent nations inside a federal system?
La Boca - Your "we" in "we stole it" blames those of us whose histories had nothing to do with how things are today. I reject it, hombre. As for the "native nations" on the continent, look a bit more closely if you think they're anything approaching an independent nation. And as for "what happened" to the Hawaiian people, well, I guess you mean that they speak English today instead of Japanese or Russian. When tribalism (nationalism) ran rampant, a handful of big tribes took everything. You mention the "real 'racist' issue", but I think you're just mistaking racism for tribalism/nationalism.
Where we are today, it seems that federalism is as good a system as we've got, despite its obvious flaws, and I look forward to seeing more of what's happening with the EU ...until it's a WU (World Union). That said, if the HSM was asking to be its own state in northern Oahu, number 51 in the union, I'd be cheering for it. But independence is something else. Sorry, I'm on Lincoln's side as far as preserving the union goes. Besides, there are fringe groups in every state asking for independence. How are the HSM are any different?
OK, all you "Free Tibet" champs. How about "Free Hawaii"? If not, why not?
The Akaka Bill provides a logical step in the direction of a 'nation within a nation' solution that begins to undue a century of oppression and colonialism in Hawaii. Progressives should be sensitive to the shameful legacy of imperial conquest and occupation, but should not buy into the extreme goals of "secession" which are not supported by the majority of U.S. citizens of Native Hawaiian ancestry (many of whom live in other places in the world outside Hawaii.)
This issue calls for a lot more insight than many of the posters here seem capable of. We have granted sovereignty to many native groups - perhaps some of you have heard of "reservations", although I hate to use that term. There is the Lummi Nation in NW Washington, as one of many examples. These Nations are technically suzerains, which means they have internal sovereignty, but fall within the purview of the US in international matters. I can't see why native Hawaiians are any less deserving of something similar than any other Native American group. I think it is a pipe dream to think that the entirety of Hawaii could be made an autonomous suzerain, but I don't think the idea of part of Hawaii being formed into a Nation with the same rights and functions as any other Native Nation is so far-fetched.
I suppose what I'm saying is that support for the idea shouldn't be dismissed out of hand and certainly doesn't threaten the US in any way. The forcible annexation of numerous Pacific Islands for the purpose of military gain is despicable, especially when it's had such a detrimental effect on the native population. Why are Hawaiians any less deserving of self-determination than other Native peoples?
And, yeah, MD, to compare this to the "plight" of Southerners who only wanted to be left alone to subjugate an entire population of people is disgusting. Peddle that shiite somewhere else.
To all the nay sayers posted above, you remind me of the old saying "we stole it, fair and square."
The other 49 co-exist with other native nations on the North American continent - why not in the Islands?
Furthermore, tell me how what happened to the Hawaiian people in the first place is not the real "racist" issue!
Finally, it is very clear in these discussions which side has "heart" and wants "JUSTICE"!
Doom n Gloom - Who is a racist? Do you even know what I am?
Same in the "progressive" universe as in the "conservative" universe ...fall out of line and you get branded.
Many of the states in the United States were acquired through violence. Genocide. True, a vast tract from Canada down to the Gulf Coast was purchased from France (LA Purchase) but the Native Americans were systematically driven from their land and killed to make more space for the white man. Manifest Destiny. My Cherokee grandfather told me tales of being pushed from his land. I remember how the white people treated him. I remember that he was shot one night as he sat on his porch smoking his pipe, hurting no one. But he was an Indian. For a white man that was reason enough. The U.S. stole from Mexico when we defeated it in war. The U.S. is founded on violence and death. I grieve for Hawaii but it is not unique, and the white people will never let it out of their grasp. If they've learned nothing else in their experiences of the white man, surely they've learned that. The whites never let go.
It breaks my heart every time I hear people going on without a clue as to the violent nature of Hawaii's inclusion into the United States. Hawaii deserves freedom and more after what happened.
The people voted and requested statehood. Its the law and if the people there think that congress will remove that star in the flag tune in at the dissolution of the globe when that issues will be discussed.
Localism offers hope for a sustainable future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Localism_%28politics%29
"Decided this one in 1865 guys. Entry into the United States is a one way street."
No it isn't. Read the US Constitution. There's not a word there that prohibits states from coming to their senses and managing their own destinies. You don't decide issues through the use of violence.
Makes my heart sing to see this article. Yes, independence for Hawaii. And California too. In fact, it's time to dissolve this entire idiotic 18th century union and let us all go our own ways. The US has turned into something monstrous and evil, and it's time to end it once and for all. Any true progressive will support this. Only corporates support the union at this point.
Mannie Davis wrote:
"I would like to support the brave members of the Hawaiian Sovereignty movement. My homeland, too, holds a disproportianate number of the empire's military bases. My homelands young men and women are economically drafted, since the United States devastated our infrastructure over a century ago, burning our fields, destroying our bridges, wrecking our roads and factories. I am speaking, of course, of Louisiana and the rest of the Confederate States of America, conquered by imperial expansion almost 150 years ago."
Mannie, do NOT even attempt to link the Civil War to Indigenous genocide. To an Indian it is both repugnant and morally destructive to make such a claim.
Stilba wrote:
"I am relatively progressive, and consider tribalism antithetical to my ideals because it only fosters endless divisiveness. "
Stilba, do Indians still live tribally today or is yours just an old racist argument?
This is perhaps serious for some in Hawaii. For everyone else in the USA, it is one of those things best discussed only after liberals inhabit every square inch of official Washington. I, for one, don't care to lose the Supreme Court and universal health care to the McCainites who then win after Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, and O'Reilly discover that "preserving the union" from secessionist lefties is the "real" election issue of 2008.
I am relatively progressive, and consider tribalism antithetical to my ideals because it only fosters endless divisiveness. If every little Kosovo, every little hamlet, and every little barn declared independence, we'd reverse into feudalism and find that one farmer wants more than just his barn, and on and on. It seems to me that one big, united (and just!) world is a better progressive dream (though still far, far away), and for that we need countries to unite and people to learn to live together ...even if it means waiting out a mismanaged empire.
Sorry HSM, look elsewhere for allies.
Hard to imagine Hawaii being independent, but hey, its not a though they joined the US voluntarily. Secede!
And, would anyone support California seceding, too?
I think this calls for a referendum in Hawaii so that the people there can decide about their own future (like the one that happened in East Timore). Except that US government does not like democracy when it comes to people deciding for themselves.
Hawaii WAS a sovereign nation until the US overthrew and murdered it's last king, Khamehameha.
Ever since then, it has been a 'protectorate' and military base really no different than modern Iraq.
So I say:
"FREE HAWAII!"
Decided this one in 1865 guys. Entry into the United States is a one way street.
I would like to support the brave members of the Hawaiian Sovereignty movement. My homeland, too, holds a disproportianate number of the empire's military bases. My homelands young men and women are economically drafted, since the United States devastated our infrastructure over a century ago, burning our fields, destroying our bridges, wrecking our roads and factories. I am speaking, of course, of Louisiana and the rest of the Confederate States of America, conquered by imperial expansion almost 150 years ago.