Hawai'ian Independence

[Stop_the_War]

Just a quick question:

If you lived in Hawaii and there was a vote whether or not to make Hawaii an independent country would you vote yes or no?

[BamaLefty]

1. No!

Those 4 votes come in handy. ;)

[atreides1]

8. But It's Costly

Those 4 votes may come in handy for you, but the people of Hawaii pay for it.

There is a little known law called the Jones Act, this law requires that vessels used to transport cargo and passengers bewtween US ports be owned by US citizens, built in US shipyards, and manned by US citizen crews.

So a ship bringing in cargo from Canada or China cannot transport cargo directly to Hawaii, that ship must first enter a US port, in
Hawaii's case the West Coast, and have its cargo loaded onto a US vessel. That ship can then take the cargo to Hawaii, so instead of a straight shot to Honolulu, which would cost less in transport, this legal detour raises the price of anything coming into Hawaii.

Now you must also take into consideration that there are only two US shipping lines that serve Hawaii, and they do not really compete with each other, because they know that the people of Hawaii don't have any other options.

The next time you buy a small box of Corn Flakes for $7.00, in Alabama, let us know.

[RC]

14. The Cost Of Living In Hawaii is 25% higher than on the mainland.

[BamaLefty]

15. I Don't Eat Corn Flakes

Especially not for $7... :P

[caligirl]

2. I did live there and this is an issue thats been simmering long time

but No I would not go along with this.

[roguevalley]

3. they recently blocked Hawaii natives getting the same sovereignty

rights as Native Americans didn't they? I think they deserve them. Of course, it would probably thrown a monkey wrench into someone's corporate rear end.

[atreides1]

4. Being Part Hawaiian

I would have to think about it. But probably yes.

[Nadienne]

5. Definately Yes. But I would keep in mind

that independence might lead to all kinds of subtle economic warfare, and perhaps some not-so-subtle warfare.

[Quetzal]

6. Being of Hawaiian ancestry

Yes, I would fully intend to vote for it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. Hawaii was an independent country until the 1890s

Its king and queen were even received as equals at Buckingham Palace.

This lasted until a group of American sugar planters staged a coup.

I don't know how economically viable Hawaii would be as an independent country, but I've spent two summers there, and I know that while it's part of the U.S., it does have a different culture than the rest of the country, even though native Hawaiians are now only a single-digit percentage of the population.

[elehhhhna]

12. Lots of Missionaries got vey wealthy in Hawaii. Surprise!

[RC]

9. Knowing what the white business man did to them, I vote

Yes.

[caligirl]

10. For any one wanting some quick info, read ther FAQ here.

http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/faq.html


15. Q: ARE KANAKA MAOLI SIMILAR TO AN INDIAN TRIBE? SHOULD THEY BE GRANTED THAT STATUS AND HAVE SPECIAL RIGHTS OVER LAND AND WATER? A: Kanaka maoli claim to be indigenous, but actually their first wave arrived in Hawai'i later than the Anglo-Saxons were established in England, and their second wave (which conquered and destroyed or enslaved the previous settlers) arrived in Hawai'i later than the Norman invasion of England. Kanaka maoli are far less indigenous than the Indians on the American continent. KM fail to meet most of the criteria established by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for recognizing tribal status. KM were never slaughtered in wars with non-KM, and were never forced to move hundreds of miles away from their "ancestral" lands. They have no recognized tribal leaders or tribal courts. They are well-assimilated, and learn ancient cultural practices and Hawaiian language just like other ethnic groups seek their roots -- only as secondary passtimes to their primary lifestyle as ordinary citizens of Hawai'i. However, some KM envy the gravy train of federal benefits to Indian tribes, and the special rights of Indian tribes over land and natural resources. And some state government officials, together with Hawai'i's two U.S. senators, believe that federal recognition of Indian status would bring megabucks to Hawai'i and would help defuse the sovereignty movement. Federal recognition of Indian status is being sought by leaders of the largest KM sovereignty organization (Ka Lahui), and by some of the elected officers of a State of Hawai'i governmental equivalent to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (OHA). Some KM who advocate total independence and a restriction of voting rights and property rights to KM alone, see tribal status as a dangerous but possibly acceptable first step toward their goals. But other KM strongly oppose tribal status, because they believe it would block or delay restoration of an independent and sovereign nation or Kingdom of Hawai'i. Growing numbers of people of all races in Hawai'i, including many KM, are concerned that tribal status would be a major drain on the resources of the U.S. government, could eventually bankrupt the State of Hawai'i, and would cause an irreparable breach of the aloha spirit, putting up a permanent wall of apartheid between the 20% of the population who have any KM blood vs. the 80% who do not. There is no historical, legal, or moral basis for tribal status in Hawai'i, nor for any other special rights limited by race to people who have the "right" ancestors. See especially the sections of this website dealing with whether non-KM were historically full partners, and whether there were stolen lands.

[RC]

11. This is B.S.

"1. Q: ARE KANAKA MAOLI (NATIVE HAWAIIANS) INDIGENOUS PEOPLE IN HAWAI'I? A: All the races in Hawai'i came here from somewhere else. The first Polynesians probably came from Marquesas around 400 AD. and a second wave probably came from Tahiti around 1200 AD, quickly overcoming the first wave and establishing a new social and cultural system. The Norman invasion of England happened before the Tahitian invasion of Hawai'i; and the Saxons had occupied England before the first Polynesians arrived in Hawai'i. So Anglo-Saxons have a greater claim to be called indigenous in England, than kanaka maoli have to be called indigenous in Hawai'i."


What does what happened in England have to do with Hawaii?

http://www.reinstated.org/

http://www.reinstated.org/HTML/intro-1.html

THE LAWFUL GOVERNMENT OF HAWAI'I HAS RETURNED FROM EXILE.

A nationalist initiative is underway in Hawai'i. Prior to its unlawful overthrow by insurrectionishts in January of 1893, the Kingdom of Hawai'i enjoyed its station as free and independent country. Queen Lili'uokalani, the head of state at the time of the coup d'etat, issued her formal letter of protest to United States President Grover Cleveland, whose foreign minister to Hawai'i extended recognition to the provisional government of the insurrectionists. By protesting in writing, the Queen preserved in international law the right of the Kanaka Maoli (Aboriginal Hawaiians) to reclaim independence for their nation.

In 1993, Hawaiian nationalists received what they wanted from the U.S. government for a whole century: a written confession. On November 23, 1993, U.S. President Bill Clinton signed a resolution authorized by both houses of the U.S. Congress: United States Public Law 103-150, A Joint Resolution to Offer an Apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for the Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i. Within its text is this admission:

"...the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum;"

>MORE<

[caligirl]

13. Still say no read on........

7. Q: DOES THE U.S. OWE KANAKA MAOLI A RESTORATION OF A SOVEREIGN NATION, AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN REPARATIONS, BECAUSE OF ITS ROLE IN THE OVERTHROW? A: Is this a joke? Read the answer to the previous question! Even if the U.S. were primarily responsible for the overthrow, what would be owed is a restoration of the government as it existed the day before the 157 troops came ashore -- a very shaky government with a figurehead queen who could neither appoint nor dismiss her cabinet without legislative approval, under the Bayonet Constitution of 1887 which had been forced on King Kalakaua by the local Honolulu Rifles without any U.S. government intervention. Most cabinet members and important government officials were non-kanaka maoli. Most residents and citizens were non-kanaka maoli prior to the overthrow. Most economic power and privately-owned land belonged to non-kanaka maoli. Yet modern-day sovereignty activists think that restoration of sovereignty is owed to racially-defined kanaka maoli alone. At no time in history was there ever a unified Kingdom of Hawai'i in which only kanaka maoli had the right to hold office or vote.

http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/faq.html

[Lone Pawn]

16. Of course not.

Hawai'i has absolutely no basis to wish for independence. In the 2000 census, only 6.6% of the population claimed to be Native Hawai'ian--and, even then, those who consider themselves first native Hawai'ian and second Americans are few and far between even among the native Hawai'ian population. It's like saying that Michigan ought to be given independence because the Man stole it from the good natives, and some descendants of said natives still exist.

[donheld]

17. What do the Hawai'ians want

If i felt that the majority of native Hawai'ians wanted independence then i would vote to give them what they want. I don't think they should be a hostage state.