Over the summer, the US Department of the Interior held a series of hearings inviting Native Hawaiians to comment on the formation of a federally recognized nation. The hearings confirmed what many Hawaiians already knew: opposing camps have formed in the debate over Hawaiian sovereignty. One side views federal recognition as a pragmatic alternative to the status quo. The other side, at first thought to be a marginal segment of the movement, seeks the full independence that Hawai‘i had in the nineteenth century. Surprisingly, after decades in which the federal recognition advocates represented the mainstream, the voices for full independence seized the spotlight. The overwhelming response at the hearings to the question of federal recognition was “a‘ole”: no.


Very few people who supported federal recognition at the hearings—“only a handful,” according to the Honolulu Civil Beat—made their voices heard. One of the most prominent proponents was Native Hawaiian Roll Commissioner Na‘alehu Anthony, who said he did not want to pass the struggle on to his son after watching three generations fight for Hawaiian rights. The written testimony that followed shows a different balance. According to analysis by University of Hawai‘i law professor Williamson Chang, 65 percent of comments were in favor of federal recognition and 35 percent in favor of independence. (The Department of the Interior has not yet completed its own review.)

These numbers are misleading. The Roll Commission compiled a list of 125,000 ostensible supporters out of the roughly 500,000 Native Hawaiians living in the United States. But two-thirds of those names were from a 2004 list gathered with the less specific purpose of establishing a “Native Hawaiian governing body,” which is broad enough to mean different things to different people.

Mainstream media coverage was misleading too. By focusing on the tone rather than the content of the comments at the hearings, commentators missed the real story, which was that a major shift in Hawaiian political will had occurred. In a community known for its divisiveness, the emergence of the independence movement as a viable force is quite stunning. Under the radar, a new view of Hawaiian history is taking hold.

Unified in 1810 by King Kamehameha I, Hawai‘i was recognized internationally as an independent country in 1843. Fifty years later, the Kingdom of Hawai‘i had treaties with nearly all the sovereign states in existence, including five with the United States. In 1893, Queen Lili‘uokalani was overthrown by sugar businessmen backed by a company of US Marines. President Grover Cleveland called this unauthorized intervention an “act of war,” withdrew the proposed annexation treaty and agreed to reinstate Lili‘uokalani. A standoff between the president and Congress over the question of annexation prevented any action for five years. When William McKinley took office in 1897, he attempted to pass a second treaty but failed. A year later, he and the annexationists in Congress decided, in the words of Congressman Thomas Ball of Texas, “to do unlawfully that which can not be done lawfully.” In 1898 they annexed Hawai‘i via joint resolution.

Nearly 100 years later, in 1993, Congress issued a formal apology to the Hawaiian people for the overthrow. But it is the subsequent annexation by resolution that lies at the heart of the current drama. Acceptance led to support for a semi-autonomous nation within a nation; non-acceptance spurred efforts to restore an independent government.

The issue of recognition has been circulating for more than a decade. The so-called “Akaka Bill,” named after its sponsor, the Native Hawaiian Senator Daniel Akaka, languished in Congress for twelve years before expiring with Akaka’s retirement and the death of senior Senator Daniel Inouye in 2012. The Department of the Interior subsequently proposed a set of “rulemaking” changes that would allow Hawaiians to join the more than 500 native nations already in existence.

For the most part, these rules suit the federal recognition camp just fine. But those in the independence movement counter that a “domestic” resolution of this sort violates international law. Just because the United States has not yet admitted to a prolonged military occupation, they argue, does not mean that Hawai‘i is not under one. This stance was buoyed by the mention of Hawai‘i for the first time as a state under “alleged” occupation in the 2013 War Report, a catalog of contemporary international conflicts published by the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. (The War Report takes no stance on the veracity of the allegation.) The International Criminal Court is giving “consideration” to complaints against state judges for administering foreign law in an occupied state. And Office of Hawaiian Affairs CEO Kamana‘opono Crabbe sent a letter to US Secretary of State John Kerry in May, asking for advisement on possible breaches of international law stemming from the OHA’s support for federal recognition. (Some of OHA’s trustees later rescinded the letter.) Even the US State Department has removed its article on the annexation of Hawai‘i “pending review.”

At its root, the debate stems from divergent beliefs about law and power. Independence advocates view international law (and specifically the law of occupation) as safeguards against the continuation of an illegally constituted, and essentially occupying, government—the State of Hawai‘i. They call not for decolonization but deoccupation, as was done in the Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) upon the breakup of the Soviet Union. Some federal recognition supporters are beneficiaries of Hawaiian “entitlements” such as the Federal Hawaiian Home Lands homesteading program; others are US military veterans who argue that the United States would never allow a withdrawal regardless of Hawai‘i’s legal status internationally. These views and the paths they imply appear to be mutually exclusive.

Because of the controversy surrounding the hearings, an aha, or convention, on Hawaiian governance was pushed back to April 2015. The delay could allow tempers to cool a bit, but supporters do not want it postponed indefinitely. Deeper reflection on Hawai‘i’s widely misunderstood history may be the only route to reconciliation, and the best path toward restoring dignity to a people who have been denied it for far too long.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I'm all for giving Hawaii the choice to secede and form their own state (kind of like we did for Puerto Rico).

My gut tells me that if they had the option they'd probably prefer to stay a US state, but they deserve the freedom to make that decision all the same.

 Frazzled wrote:


NO.

Any state that attempts to secede should be crushed utterly.

 Frazzled wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I'm all for giving Hawaii the choice to secede and form their own state (kind of like we did for Puerto Rico).

My gut tells me that if they had the option they'd probably prefer to stay a US state, but they deserve the freedom to make that decision all the same.

NO.

Any state that attempts to secede should be crushed utterly.

Your analogy to PR is incredibly misplaced. PR was never a US state.

 Frazzled wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I'm all for giving Hawaii the choice to secede and form their own state (kind of like we did for Puerto Rico).

My gut tells me that if they had the option they'd probably prefer to stay a US state, but they deserve the freedom to make that decision all the same.

NO.

Any state that attempts to secede should be crushed utterly.

Your analogy to PR is incredibly misplaced. PR was never a US state.

 Ketara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


NO.

Any state that attempts to secede should be crushed utterly.

What about the strand of thought under which they're more of an occupied territory than a state? I mean, one would think that they'd have had to have joined to be able to secede.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I'm all for giving Hawaii the choice to secede and form their own state (kind of like we did for Puerto Rico).

My gut tells me that if they had the option they'd probably prefer to stay a US state, but they deserve the freedom to make that decision all the same.

NO.

Any state that attempts to secede should be crushed utterly.

Your analogy to PR is incredibly misplaced. PR was never a US state.

Why does it matter?

edit- Toss a slippery slope fallacy at me and I'm coming to Texas and beating you. Fair warning.

 Frazzled wrote:
Are you ignorant of something called THE CIVIL WAR? Its like people are taught nothing but how to get thrown out of chairs by cops go ragey in school these days.

 LordofHats wrote:
Hawaii is a State with full Federal representation and recognition. I'm not sure that can be called 'occupation' even if we acquired that territory somewhat underhandedly in the first place. While I get get classifying it as such from a legal stand point, the practical reality on the ground would seem miles away from that. If we were talking about Puerto Rico or Guam maybe.

I was unaware that Native Hawaiians didn't have their own Nation though. Kind of have mixed feelings about how those deals have worked out for other groups...

I don't know if Hawaii has Referendums but the independence movement would lose anyway. Native Hawaiians only make up just under 7% of Hawaaii's population..

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Are you ignorant of something called THE CIVIL WAR? Its like people are taught nothing but how to get thrown out of chairs by cops go ragey in school these days.

Classic Frazz.

The Civil War occurred because states involved attempted to leave the Union without the Union's permission. That's not an applicable scenario to what's being discussed in this thread.

 Frazzled wrote:
I thought 94% of Hawaii was owned by China now, with 5% owned by Japan?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Everyone on dakka made fun of my 49 star flag business. But now, now im vindicated

 LordofHats wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I thought 94% of Hawaii was owned by China now, with 5% owned by Japan?

In the 40's and 50s yes, Asians Americans were the largest Demographic in Hawaii by a huge margin. While it's still the largest single ethnic Catagory, in the last 50 years its dropped from 60% to 25%. Hawaii now sports the largest 'Two or More' (mixed race) Ethnic Demographic in the US

 Frazzled wrote:
Are you ignorant of something called THE CIVIL WAR?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Everyone on dakka made fun of my 49 star flag business. But now, now im vindicated

 reds8n wrote:
...so this is really the latest attempt by Republicans to get rid of Obama right ?

 reds8n wrote:
...so this is really the latest attempt by Republicans to get rid of Obama right ?

 Frazzled wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I'm all for giving Hawaii the choice to secede and form their own state (kind of like we did for Puerto Rico).

My gut tells me that if they had the option they'd probably prefer to stay a US state, but they deserve the freedom to make that decision all the same.

NO.

Any state that attempts to secede should be crushed utterly.

Your analogy to PR is incredibly misplaced. PR was never a US state.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:


Personally, I am somewhat shocked to see that statement coming from a Texan.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Are we going to have to give Mexico back their land too?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I'm all for giving Hawaii the choice to secede and form their own state (kind of like we did for Puerto Rico).

My gut tells me that if they had the option they'd probably prefer to stay a US state, but they deserve the freedom to make that decision all the same.

NO.

Any state that attempts to secede should be crushed utterly.

Your analogy to PR is incredibly misplaced. PR was never a US state.

Personally, I am somewhat shocked to see that statement coming from a Texan.

 kronk wrote:
PR gets all the perks of being a US state without the taxes and other bs.

 daedalus wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:


Personally, I am somewhat shocked to see that statement coming from a Texan.

It's the only special thing keeping them from just being another Florida.

 LordofHats wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Are we going to have to give Mexico back their land too?

This is another relevant issue. Pretty much everything west of Kansas was acquired... Less than honestly, from an International perspective. Not to mention all this stuff happened over 100 years ago.

I find "I prefer to have my own country" a rather slip shot excuse to demand independence. I mean who if they could wouldn't want their own country? Is there some specific complaint beyond "my great great grand father got cheated"? Native Hawaii's have fully recognized rights. Of all the states in the US, Hawaii has the fewest issues with institutional racism and discrimination (likely owing to it's very mixed race demographics). There is no law in place that denies Native Hawaiians any freedoms or legal recourse. Given the time that has passed since annexation, and the lack of any apparent marginalization, a quest for independence from a full State where they don't even come close to being a plurality seems petty and short sighted.