Clarifying the Right of Self-determination Regarding Hawai‘i

In Hawai‘i, there is much confusion regarding the principle of international law called self-determination. The term is often used in political rhetoric in Hawai‘i’s community but there is no clear understanding of the term itself and its application to Hawai‘i. Some are concerned about who will be able to vote in a plebiscite or referendum, while others believe that a plebiscite vote was already done in 1959 when Hawai‘i became the so-called 50th State of the American Union.

Let’s start off with the definition first. Self-determination is the “legal right of people to determine their own destiny in the international order.” Within this international order are different political units that comprise it. At the very top of this order is the first political unit who are the people of established States, which is also referred to as countries. The second political unit are comprised the people in non-self-governing territories, which are non-States in a colonial situation. The third political unit is comprised of Indigenous Peoples, which are tribal peoples that exist within the territory of an established State not of their own making.

Regarding the first political unit called the people or nationals of an established State, Article 1(2) of the United Nations Charter provides that one of the purposes of the United Nations is to “develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination.” Article 1 of both the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

According to Professor Cassese, this type of self-determination is where the national population of the State shall “choose their legislators and political leaders free from any manipulation or undue influence from the domestic authorities themselves.” And only when the national population of an existing State “are afforded these rights can it be said that the whole people enjoys the right of internal self-determination.” As the officers of the Hawaiian Patriotic League stated in a petition to President Cleveland on December 27, 1893, the Hawaiian nation, “for the past sixty years, had enjoyed free and happy constitutional self-government.”This means that Hawaiian subjects were enjoying, what is understood today in international law, “the right of internal self-determination” up to the American invasion and subsequent overthrow of their government on January 17, 1893.

When a State comes under the belligerent occupation by another State after its government has been overthrown, the national population of the occupied State is temporarily prevented from exercising its political rights it previously enjoyed prior to the occupation, such as choosing their “legislators and political leadership.” As Professor Craven points out, “the Hawaiian people retain a right to self-determination in a manner prescribed by general international law. Such a right would entail, at the first instance, the removal of all attributes of foreign occupation, and restoration of the sovereign rights of the dispossessed government.”

The second political unit is comprised of non-self-governing territories, such as the people of East Timor that were first under the colonial power of Portugal, then under the occupation by Indonesia. In this case, the right of self-determination is guided by the United Nations resolution 1514 called decolonization. As a dependent people who have not exercised their right of self-determination, resolution 1514 provides:

“Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.”

U.N. resolution 1514 only applies to non-self-governing territories that have not achieved independence, or in other words were never an independent State. This resolution does not apply to the citizenry of existing States. The legal personality of a non-State territory is distinct from an independent State as stated in the 1975 Friendly Relations Declaration, which provides:

“The territory of a colony or other Non-Self-Governing Territory has, under the Charter, a status separate and distinct from the territory of the State administering it; and such separate and distinct status under the Charter shall exist until the people of the colony or Non-Self-Governing Territory have exercised their right of self-determination in accordance with the Charter.”

East Timor is a recent example of its people exercising their right to self-determination as defined by the United Nations for non-self-governing territories. As a former Portuguese colony that was invaded by Indonesia in 1975, East Timor exercised its right of self-determination and chose to be an independent State in a 1999 referendum overseen by the United Nations. As a result of the referendum, East Timor achieved its status as an independent State on May 20, 2002. It became the 191st member State of the United Nations. As an established State, the people of East Timor still retain their right of self-determination by choosing “their legislators and political leaders free from any manipulation or undue influence from the domestic authorities themselves.”

The Hawaiian Kingdom, as an independent State, did not lose its independence and become non-self-governing as a result of the United States illegal overthrow of its government and the ensuing occupation, just as the German and Japanese States did not lose their independence and became non-self-governing when their governments were destroyed by the Allied Powers that brought the hostilities of the Second World War to an end. Furthermore, Germany and Japan were not de-colonized when the Allied Powers ended their occupation of both their territories in the mid-1950s. These States were de-occupied according to the rules of international law, which apply with equal force to the Hawaiian Kingdom.

U.N. resolution 1514 does not apply to the Hawaiian situation despite the United States deliberate attempt to conceal its prolonged occupation by reporting Hawai‘i as a non-self-governing territory in 1946 under Article 73(e). The United States did not report Japan as a non-self-governing territory when it occupied Japanese territory from 1945 until 1952, or when it occupied Germany from 1945-1955. Even though the 1959 U.N. resolution 1469 (XIV) that stated the General Assembly “Expresses the opinion, based on its examination of the documentation and the explanations provided, that the people of…Hawaii have effectively exercised their right to self-determination and have freely chosen their present status” as the State of Hawai‘i, is not only an opinion and non-binding, but wrong because Hawai‘i was never a non-self-governing territory to begin with.

According to Article 13 of the U.N. Charter, the “General Assembly shall initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose of…promoting international co-operation in the political field and encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codification.” U.N. resolutions are not a source of international law but are merely recommendations that cannot impede or alter the obligations of the United States under the law of occupation. As Judge Crawford states, “Of course, the General Assembly is not a legislature. Mostly its resolutions are only recommendations, and it has no capacity to impose new legal obligations on States.” Most people believe that the United Nations General Assembly is a legislature that enacts international law. It isn’t.

The last political unit are Indigenous Peoples. The first use of the term self-determination in Hawai‘i goes back to the 1993 congressional joint resolution apoligizing to “Native Hawaiians” for the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government. Aside from the inaccuracies riddled throughout the congressional legislation, it stated that the Congress “apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893 with the participation of agents and citizens of the United States, and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination.” The Apology resolution also stated that “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.”

Under international law, the term “inherent sovereignty” has no meaning. Sovereignty is vested in the Country, which is also called State sovereignty, and not in a people. Inherent sovereignty, however, is a term used in United States Federal Indian law and not international law. Its definition can be found in a 1976 law article titled “Comment: Inherent Indian Sovereignty,” published in the American Indian Law Review. The authors, Jessie Green and Susan Work, wrote:

“Inherent sovereignty is the most basic principle of all Indian law and means simply that the powers lawfully vested in an Indian tribe are those powers that predate New World discovery and have never been extinguished. Some of the powers of inherent sovereignty which have been recognized by the courts are the right to determine a form of government, the power to determine membership, the application of Indian customs, laws, and tribal jurisdiction to domestic relations and descent and distribution of property, power of taxation, exclusion of nonmembers from tribal territory, power over tribal property, rights of occupancy in tribal lands, jurisdiction over property of members, and administration of justice. Whether tribal sovereignty exists by the grace of courteous regard for the past by the courts, or by the rights of historical precedent ratified in treaties and statutes by Congress, it is an important past and present force which sets the Native American people apart from their fellow Americans.”

The apology resolution intentionally and falsely positions Native Hawaiians as a tribal group within the State of Hawai‘i that has a special relationship to the United States. The United States recognizes Native American tribes as Indigenous Peoples whose rights, under international law, come under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Article 3 of the UNDRIP states, “Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. This guarantees the right to freely determine their political condition and the right to freely pursue their form of economic, social, and cultural development.”

The United States and the State of Hawai‘i have used this type of self-determination as political rhetoric because it maintains their authority and continued presence in the Hawaiian Islands. The continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom, under international law, as an independent State that has been under a prolonged occupation by the United States obliterates this false narrative. As the national population of an established State, the Hawaiian Kingdom, the right of self-determination of Hawaiian subjects will be realized when the American occupation comes to an end. The law of occupation prevents the legislature of the occupied State from convening because complete authority to temporarily administer the laws of the occupied State is with the occupying State. When the occupation comes to an end, Hawaiian political rights will be fully restored and the right of self-determination will continue to where Hawaiian subjects will “choose their legislators and political leaders free from any manipulation or undue influence from the domestic authorities themselves.” Plebiscites or referendums under the United Nations do not apply to the Hawaiian Kingdom because it is not a non-self-governing territory but rather an independent State.

32 thoughts on “Clarifying the Right of Self-determination Regarding Hawai‘i

  1. Okay that’s good but where is it going to get you you’re using the same laws that the Indians had put them on the reservation you’re still going to use United States law for propitiation funding because your country will need money let’s see if they get rid of Child Support that’s not going to happen your Constitution says if anybody lands on your country you are considered free child support is nothing but a slavery Act forcing a father to pay for a mother who divorced them where she could live rich the social security number is the key element to put the father on child support without the social security number they cannot track you do all this fighting for so long what did the country get you stuck on a country like the Indians on a reservation good luck and see how far it gets you fighting for so long so yeah land rights the same as the Indians did how long does it take to be a free country Free Nation 20 more years. Old people will be dead and you will be still part of the United states but called the Hawaii kingdom WOW

    • Gary Williamowski, your thinking is quite small-minded. The issue is much, much larger than child support and social security. There is no comparison between the situation native Americans experienced as tribal people to what Hawaiians experienced as an internationally recognized state, but there are similarities such as dispossession of lands and often lives at the hands of white folks.

      White explorers trying to get to India got lost and landed on the eastern shores of North America. Believing they were in India, the lost white folks believed the residents to be “indians,” then commenced to salivate over native American’s lands and natural resources resulting in white folks forced relocations and murders of thousands upon thousands of native Americans.

      FYI, there are no “indians” in North America other than transplants from India. Natives of North America are known by various tribal names such as Souix, Cherokee, Apache, etc.

    • We the people of the Hawaiian Kingdom ( KANAKA MAOLI) we had our own KALA ( MONEY) with Kalakaua picture on it. Why did the America took that money away from our people ? And the postal service ? that we already had before the overthrow of our Queen in 1893 ? America took everything away from our people. and we are getting it back.

  2. Please consider the counterargument that all or any portion of population of a State without a functioning legitimate government are at least equally entitled to exercise self-determination as other non-self-governing territories, especially if there is no other government to successfully resist. This is precisely why North and South Korea were able to form legitimate States after Japan was forced to withdraw. For similar reasons, Gibraltar, although part of Spain, is entitled to exercise external self-determination and Spain cannot use force or the threat of force stop it. Likewise, Western Sahara is also entitled to exercise external self-determination despite Morocco’s claim. Of course this does not preclude a restored Hawaiian Kingdom Government from successfully reclaiming national territory under the theory of occupation, just as China asserted over Hong Kong and Macao, Spain attempts to assert over Gibraltar, Morocco asserts over Western Sahara, and Papua New Guinea asserts over West Papua. However, territorial integrity of States is only protected against other States and cannot stand against the right of Peoples to exercise external self-determination.

    Furthermore, indigenous Peoples of separate kingdoms were conquered prior to international recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom, which entitles these subjugated and colonized indigenous Peoples to exercise external self-determination to form separate States, whether before or after the Hawaiian Kingdom is restored, if ever. Surely a previously subjugated Kauai and Niihau can attempt to gain independent international recognition and seize the remainder of the Hawaiian Islands from a weak or non-existent Hawaiian Kingdom government as an indemnity for being subjugated by Kamehameha’s successors and their subsequent usurpers for all these years. India’s invasion of Goa is a perfect example of how this could occur with subsequent acquiescence by the international community.

    As to the State sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom, one can make a valid counterargument that sovereignty lies with the NATIVE people of the Hawaiian Islands because it was they who the ALI’I were selected from. Certainly it was true that non-natives could vote and participate in government, but SOVEREIGNTY was carried in the blood of ALL NATIVE subjects. We know this to be true because a new monarch could always be selected to replace the previous one until the last NATIVE ceased to exist. Non-native subjects lacked sovereignty and thus the latent potential to be promoted to non-subject status. Therefore, in the absence of a functioning government, as an act of rebellion against the previous order and it’s existing laws, the living descendants of Hāloa could indeed form a new government under new laws, which government would undeniably be the legitimate government of the Hawaiian Islands as a nation-state in continuity. Moreover, if a majority of the population entitled to vote as Hawaiian nationals under existing Hawaiian Kingdom law voted to ratify the primary governing document of said new government, the question as to legitimacy would be permanently settled, as would the question of which laws apply.

    • This is not a reply to Keahi. It is to the argument presented by Keahi.

      “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.” Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow (Penguin Books, 1973). 251.

      “Occupation comes to an end when an occupant withdraws from a territory or is driven out of it.” L. Oppenheim, International Law: A treatise, vol 2, Disputes, War and Neutrality, 7th Ed.n., ed. Lauterpacht, Longmans, Green, London, 1952, p. 436.

      “…the battlefield is no place for semantic debate.” Edward Luttwak, “Deadend: Counterinsurgency Warfare as Military Malpractice,” Harper’s Magazine, no. February (2007).

      Keahi writes:

      “Please consider the counterargument that all or any portion of population of a State without a functioning legitimate government are at least equally entitled to exercise self-determination as other non-self-governing territories, especially if there is no other government to successfully resist.”

      Is this a ‘political’ or ‘legal’ argument?

      If legal, it is ‘wrong’ as it does not state the law as it, in fact, exists.

      If political, it is ‘wrong’ in the sense that it is ‘out of order’ as now is not the time to start a second fight [in fact a fight that is in the nature of a civil war between Hawaiians, both Hawaiian-Hawaiians [ethnic-nationals] and “non-Hawaiian-Hawaiians [Persons who were Hawaiian Nationals under Hawaiian Kingdom law who are not ethnically Hawaiian] over ‘what the law of the country is’ while involved in a fight [the state of international war noted by Cleveland in his message to the US Congress begun when US ‘boots’ came off the USS Boston in support of traitors to the Hawaiian State] to end the occupation.

      Is it not wiser to focus exclusively on actions aimed to end the occupation and accepting Hawaiian Kingdom law as the only legitimate, or ‘lawful’ law of the country even if not effective at the moment. Once the foreign government influence is removed and remedied and Hawaiian Kingdom laws begin to be able to be enforced by an acting government committed to the transitions to the legal order the nation sorts out that will be the time to dispute these under the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Now this argument you make is largely hypothetical as the law you want to change isn’t effective. Why argue hypothetical change in a real occupation?

      I contend that amending the laws after the occupation ends is when a ‘purer’ self-determination without the taint a foreign government’s presence becomes possible.

      If the terms used are used in their legal sense, then the argument errs and is flawed in a way that strikes me as fatal. Examine the definition of “State”. Examine the definition of “non self-governing territories”. States, by definition, are not “non self-governing territories”. “Non self-governing territories are, by definition, not “States”. These, or this fact disposes of the argument in its entirety as being simply ‘wrong’.

      There are other material problems caused by errors. One is example is the mistakenly characterizing State the Hawaiian Nation self-determined with Gibraltar and the Western Sahara.

      It looks your mixing of legal with political has caused you to mis-state the North Korea-South Korea situation. The status of Korea and/or North Korea and/or South Korea awaits a peace treaty to end the state of war that presently exists there.
      [] and
      [] “Fighting in the war came to a halt on 27 July 1953 with an armistice agreement, but the war never officially ended.] Hostilities ended in the United States war on the Hawaiian Kingdom on 17 Jan 1893 but the war never officially ended. There is a war on, act accordingly. Your argument is one that the US loves as it would divide the Hawaiian nation during war time.

      This error suggests that more study is needed. Though I note that wiki is not a bad place to start even if it is a bad place to end one’s study of an issue: Hawaiʻi is unmentioned and that shows a gap. Wiki entries on topics which should include a mention of the Hawaiian Islands and/or the Hawaiian Kingdom tend to erroneously state or, more often, omit. []

      The references to Kaua’i and Niʻihau verge on deceptive since it omits the manner by which those populations of the Kingdom of Kauaʻi were lawfully merged into the Hawaiian Kingdom population via treaty to become Hawaiian Nationals. This suggests another gap needing study.

      This is a link to Professor Lenzerini statement of what the law is in this area. I defer to his opinion until I find another which is more persuasive. [!AlWZVnn76RaUmEa7L4d4E5i2G6Si?e=aHB1IF]

      I commend your attention to it. He describes a complicated topic in which certain terms have specific meanings in a way that I found helpful and easy to read and re-read.

      I don’t find that CAPITALIZING WORDS renders the ARGUMENT made more persuasive. I wonder if others do. SOVEREIGNTY is not carried in the BLOOD. This is a legal/political situation not a biological one. BLOOD arguments are fascist and more than faintly Hitlerian []. SHOUTING an argument doesn’t make the argument any better, only louder.

      I wouldn’t make them but it’s your argument. Jus soli and jus sanguine are legal doctrines recognizing different bases for nationality not only BLOOD. This is more fully described here [].

      Another inconsistency is that you want to apply Hawaiian Kingdom law to determine who are Hawaiian nationals “under existing Hawaiian Kingdom” which apparently you concede or wish to have apply. Yet you want to invent law regarding a plebiscite or referendum for these, by Hawaiian Kingdom law, Hawaiians to participate in. I see that as another fatal flaw in your argument/proposal. One cannot cherry-pick which laws apply in a country. But you don’t even present a law with specific language but rather an ‘idea’ for a law and that ensures an argument which will not tend to unite those opposed to the occupation.

      The argument to use HK law selectively i.e. to decide who is a Hawaiian national to vote “to ratify the primary governing document of said new government” is senseless as the Hawaiian Kingdom constitution and statutory laws determine who are the Hawaiian Kingdom nationals who are the ones you claim have the vote. Hawaiian Kingdom law to my knowledge, contains no provisions for referendum you propose to have decide a very important issue. So the argument you make use what is in fact and in truth “real” law [Hawaiian Kingdom law to determine nationality] in combination with non-existing “law” that you, or someone else, want to invent.

      Who is legally authorized to “invent” this law? My guess from what you say is that ‘BLOOD’ does. But BLOOD doesn’t create law. Custom can create law. Constitution writers can create basic law. Legislatures are authorized to create law. Executive branches can be authorized to create law though they usually are responsible for enforcing law. Courts can create law by interpreting it.

      Anyone reading this can go check HK law and figure out if they can prove they are Hawaiian Nationals.

      What texts do you recommend we consult to answer the same question under your argument? The 1864 HK constitution [the would be 1887 document was not lawfully adopted but that is an analysis for another day] does have provisions for amending the constitution which is what this ‘vote’ you propose would do. These provisions are now ineffective but do exist.

      That is a fatal in my opinion, contradiction– if your argument is a legal one. Consistency provides predictability which individuals need to plan and execute actions.

      If you use HK law to determine whether a person has a franchise then you accept HK law legitimacy and applicability, but in an effort to engage in [the referendum] something that it does not, presently, allow for.

      If your argument is a political one it is unsound as it sets the ground for endless pointless arguing among those who agree that the US must deoccupy but may agree as to which “law” to follow since your referendum law doesn’t exist and would have to be invented and agreed upon but by who? Your proposal should be followed and will not result in what you claim to want which is that “legitimacy would be permanently settled, as would the question of which laws apply.” You seem to believe that “effectiveness = legitimacy” which is error. Surely it is better to have only one primary “political” argument going on at a time that being ending the occupation, the argument to reform restructure change modify the basic law and the statutory law, logically and practically it seems to me can come once the US is gone.

      It is a bit snarky so I am saving this to the last:

      “Please consider” this:

      What you are proposing assists the occupier by injecting division among those who, I presume, oppose and wish to end the occupation.

      Objectively this argument assists the US by dividing Hawaiian patriots and diverting them down a path of internecine dispute. It makes ‘legal’ Hawaiians opponents of ‘legal’ Hawaiians in an effort to divide the ‘legal’ Hawaiian national population.

      There are other arguments that time doesn’t allow me to present and anyway I have gone on much longer than I began with the intention of. If I have mis-stated the argument or any facts I apologize and look forward to having the error pointed out and the authority for the proposed correction provided and/or identified.

  3. The argument presented was primary a legal argument. As the legal authority was already cited in the post, it was unnecessary to cite it again. However, for the sake of clarity, “Article 1 of both the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that ‘All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.'”

    As to your rebuttal to the political argument, my political argument is not “wrong”. To simply suggest a hypothetical premature civil war is not the same as starting a premature civil war. During an occupation or immediately after is precisely when a civil war could facilitate the establishment of a new regime that may never otherwise have a chance. Rather than resisting it, a better strategy would be to expect it and even attempt to control the outcome. Moreover, I even suggested a potential pathway of uniting more than one group of Hawaiians that choose to define themselves differently, just as the various American states are united under a common flag. Your argument that it’s “out of order” doesn’t make it wrong, and it certainly doesn’t bar a non-conventional approach from effectively ending the occupation. It also doesn’t prohibit state continuity.

    Indeed HK laws are presently the only legitimate laws of the country. However, frankly they will never be effective and must be replaced. Thus, is it not wiser to draft a new basic law that all Hawaiians can easily understand and are willing to stand behind, which can then form the basis for electing a new government to properly end the occupation and enact better legislation, as opposed to a mere “acting” government attempting to gain support from the Hawaiian People? Why wait for the occupation to end before starting to act like a real country?

    I contend that the power vacuum remaining when the occupation ends will certainly taint the process of nation building, especially since many of the same government actors that already work for the State of Hawaii will simply switch over to the HK payroll. Establishing a new government now would force people to prove their allegiance immediately rather than wait until it’s safe to switch sides.

    I absolutely agree that non-self-governing territories are not the same as States, but all or a portion of a State’s territory can be mistakenly treated as non-self-governing territory by other States unless and until it is rightfully re-claimed by the legitimate government of that State. This happened to Hong Kong and Macao until the Chinese government asserted itself, just as a Hawaiian government could do with respect to Hawaii.

    North and South Korea are obviously doing fine without a peace treaty. All that was required was for Japan to leave, just as the United States will leave Hawaii. Thereafter, Hawaiians can resume the exercise of our sovereignty, as one state or more than one, just as Koreans did.

    As for the so-called treaty merging Kauai and Niihau with the Hawaiian Kingdom, I must argue that any such treaty was procured by coercion of representatives of the Kingdom of Kauai and Niihau and is thus null and void. Furthermore, even if a treaty were valid, the principle of self-determination will prevail. If you don’t accept that then perhaps arbitration will do. If that doesn’t resolve the matter then another civil war is always an option. Kauaians are fierce and they don’t appreciate being told that they were “lawfully merged” just as much as Hawaiians don’t appreciate being told they were “lawfully annexed”.

    The choice to capitalize was for emphasis as there was no option for italics. As for the blood argument, that’s not my argument but rather a feature of Hawaiian law, which I have already explained. I agree that it’s but one could argue that only native rulers have ever proven they could successfully manage Hawaii’s natural resources. Non-native rulers have consistently failed, not just in Hawaii but everywhere in the world.

    The point of allowing Hawaiians to define themselves under HK law was simply an example of a definition. The point was to allow different Hawaiian groups to define themselves as they wish, but to unite under a single governing document, not simply to “pick and choose” which HK laws to apply but rather to completely replace them with laws that are effective and actually have public acceptance. Surely this can be accomplished by peaceful referenda rather than via civil war, despite that HK law doesn’t expressly allow for it. Would you prefer a bloody revolution just to accomplish the same thing?

    As to who can invent the law, I believe it can be anyone so long as that law is ratified by those it attempts to govern. I think it would be more legitimate if the basic law were drafted by a group that had actual and exclusive control of some national Hawaiian territory, and subsequently ratified by voters residing in that territory. However, anything would be more legitimate than the U.S. Constitution.

    Sorry but I must inform you that Hawaiians are already divided and this conversation will at least give Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians some things to think about rather than blindly following the “one primary legal argument”.

    Note that I don’t disagree with what is being promoted on this website as a valid pathway to end U.S. occupation. I’m simply offering that there are multiple ways to get there and many dangers to be aware of that aren’t even being talked about. What you might view as pointless or counterproductive might be engaging for others that would otherwise choose not to participate. It’s unfortunate that you don’t recognize the value in open dialogue just because it challenges your perspective or isn’t perfectly articulated or in the form of a dissertation.

    As for effectiveness being equal to legitimacy, that’s not what I’m saying. Legitimacy has to do with public perception and is only part of effectiveness. The other part is competency of leadership, which is assisted by sensible legislation. Until Hawaiians have elected a representative government with exclusive control over some earthy territory, we have demonstrated neither competency nor legitimacy and will remain a failed state.

  4. In a previous comment I suggested that Hawaiians already have the option to completely replace existing Hawaiian Kingdom laws with new laws. One of the reasons for doing this would be to correct the great injustice created by the Great Mahele. Many Hawaiians advocate for returning to the status quo that existed prior to the U.S. invasion of Hawaii in 1898, or even 1893, because they believe that they are entitled to and will receive clear title to Hawaiian lands based on the invalidation of conveyances made during occupation. Aside from the obvious problem of resistance from U.S. individuals and corporations that could lead to federal lawsuits and U.S. sanctions, the problem with voiding transfers is that land distribution was already extremely unequal by the time of occupation. Therefore, most Hawaiians don’t have a strong incentive to trade away their U.S. benefits when they will end up with less if independence is restored. Those of us Hawaiians that have improved our status as landowners as a result of the occupation would be even less inclined to roll back the clock. A potential solution is to enact new laws that provide for radical land reform and redistribution that is based on common sense and equality. In such a scenario, those who have more resources to give will give the most, but everyone will still have enough in the end. This is not to say that capitalism cannot thrive. Indeed it can. However, it will not thrive at the expense of human dignity and the right of each person to have a means of subsistence and to fulfill their kuleana to perpetuate the life of the land for future generations. Certainly some may be are worried about land expropriation because they feel they worked hard for what they have and they think it’s unfair to give most of it up. Fortunately, only a very small percentage of the population fall into that category and they will be outvoted by the majority. Furthermore, most people are very willing to share their fortunes with their own children and in fact have a duty to do so. Land reform can be viewed as simply expanding that duty of support to the children of others – a very Hawaiian value indeed.

    Another problem with existing HK law is that it’s strongly influenced by religious principles that were imposed upon Hawaiians by those that sought to dominate them. From the first line of the first Hawaiian CONstitution in 1839, we were already in trouble. “‘God hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the earth,’ in unity and blessedness. God has also bestowed certain rights alike on all men and all chiefs, and all people of all lands.”
    It pretends to speak to equal rights bestowed by a legal authority that is impossible to question rather than rooted in simple common sense. Moreover, we know that there was already a hierarchy in place at the time, presumably also pursuant to the will of God. Those that already had access to greater resources and education, such as chiefs or wealthy businessmen, would have a distinct advantage where everyone was viewed equally under the law. Therefore, the result was an environment of inequality against the native commoners. Religious dogma conveniently facilitated, and continues to facilitate, acceptance of inequality as precisely God’s will. Perhaps a secular form of nationalism would facilitate laws that are better for all.

    • Again this is a response to the argument/s not the arguer. But, I cite the first sentence of Brandolini’s Law as the basis for my brevity here and I restrict my comments to the only two ‘fact-based’ assertions that I see appearing in the post. []

      “Another problem with existing HK law is that it’s strongly influenced by religious principles that were imposed upon Hawaiians by those that sought to dominate them.”

      Prove it. Identify, by name, “those that sought to dominate them”. In this context and the failure to identity I am a bit of a loss and have to guess. I am guessing you mean the fiendish dread Missionaries. As I read the historical record Hawaiian-Hawaiian [ethnicity-nationality] legal and political leadership decided before the missionaries even came ashore that it was time to abandon the old religion. Wiki is not always reliable on sophisticated point but on easily confirmable points, like dates, it is usually reliable.

      “The kapu system was used in Hawaii until 1819, when King Kamehameha II, acting with his mother Queen Keōpūolani, his father’s other queen Kaʻahumanu, and Kahuna-nui Hewahewa, abolished it by the symbolic act of sharing a meal of forbidden foods with the women of his court. []

      Kamehameha II is best remembered for the ‘Ai Noa, the breaking of the ancient kapu (taboo) system of religious laws six months into his reign when he sat down with Kaʻahumanu and his mother Keopuolani and ate a meal together. What followed was the disbanding of the social class of priest and the destruction of temples and images.

      K II’s reign begins 20 May 1819. May 20 plus 6 months is late November or early December 1819. ‘Ai Noa occurred in late November or early December 1819. It is unlikely that ‘Ai Noa was lightly or quickly decided upon. It seems to have been in the nature of the Hawaiian political leadership to discuss things amongst themselves and figure out how it would be received. I haven’t done any research so this is speculation and the process may not have happened this way. It was dawning on members of the Hawaiian ruling class that to survive they had to evolve to meet the new environment. That is how evolution works. The royals and the chiefs concluded that ‘things’ were going to have to be different from what they had been before and that actions needed to be taken to address the pressures from the outside before the outside intervened with force. So that the discussions which led to the decision probably began a few or even several months before late November or early December 1819. It isn’t impossible that Kamehameha I knew of and approved of it before he passed in May 1819. I am not familiar with any research either way. If someone is, I’d like to hear about it.

      [Sidebar K II is often portrayed, like Kalakaua, as a bit of a clown or buffoon or unserious. K II undertook what all knew to be a very hazardous journey on behalf of his nation and died in service to the Hawaiian Kingdom. His quasi-circumnavigation of the globe prefigures Kalakaua’s actual one. K II deserves much more even-handed treatment by scholars and others.]

      There is much to learn before coming to conclusions and opinions in any permanent way. Much of what has been propagandized by the United States Occupation Government [USOG] is false, knowingly false and has been since the lies told as justification for the invasion and war [Stevens, “We were protecting American lives and property from imminent threat. Yeah, right. Lying since before the beginning. I’ll deal with the history of lies and falsehoods elsewhere and later.] []

      “October 23, 1819-First Missionaries Leave for Hawaiʻi. On this day in 1819, a crowd gathered on a Boston wharf to bid farewell to the first Protestant missionaries bound for Hawaii. After a difficult five-month voyage, they got their first glimpse of the Big Island and its people

      October plus five months means the “The first ABCFM company arrived on March 30, 1820, on the Thaddeus from Boston: []

      It is stating the obvious to note that 30 March 1820 is later in time than November or early December 1819.

      There were no missionaries at the table. They were likely somewhere in the mid, or south Atlantic. The missionaries are alibied up for this one.

      In the real world, effects don’t precede causes. In magical “made up bullshit world” perhaps effects do precede cause or perhaps it was the miraculous “power of prayer” of the missionaries whose prayers while on board ship on the other side of the world transcended time and distance to ‘shazam’ make Hawaiian political leadership bend to their will.

      Hawaiian Hawaiians [ethnic-nationals] made the call to dump the old religion which appeared to have lost its efficacy of ‘calling on the gods’. Was the call influenced by external factors? I won’t argue that it wasn’t. Was the decision made by the outside and merely implemented by a weak puppety Hawaiian government? I don’t believe so. Was the change influenced by internal Hawaiian Kingdom political/social/religious disputes? I think so and I think I could prove so, if it hasn’t been proven already. Did other Hawaiian-Hawaiians oppose the decision, yeah. Kamehameha II’s government made the decision. It is futile to attempt to mind read the dead. So any reason/s as to why the change was made is speculative. It seems, at least disrespectful to me, to claim Hawaiian leadership of the day was so feeble and weak as to be controlled by foreigners who hadn’t even arrived yet.

      Did the decision to abandon the old religion have opposition? Yes. What followed the implementation of the decision was a one battle civil war which the anti-modernizers [and yes both sides had Western weapons which were chosen by them not forced upon them] lost. So if God/Gods intervene in battle the old gods lost []

      ===== =
      “One of the reasons for doing this would be to correct the great injustice created by the Great Mahele.”

      Prove it. Prove the ‘creation’ aspect. Prove that as written and when interpreted by Hawaiian Kingdom courts that it was unjust. This claim has been repeated so many times that it is believed because it has been said so many times not because there is ‘so much’ evidence for it. It is a faith-based, not fact-based, belief.

      It has the appeal of all simple and simplistic, but erroneous, explanations it is easy. The connection between property law reform and dispossession as a result of the Mahele has not been proven. I suggest, that with more factual research, rather than repeating rhetoric, the picture is both clearer and more complicated. Complicated situations rarely have a simple or unitary cause. Start here with Donovan Preza’s “The Emprical Writes Back: Re-examining Hawaiian Dispossession Resulting from the Mahele of 1848”. Here is a link to the text. [!AlWZVnn76RaUnR2sPwEWyBkcv_L3?e=Xp7cjt]

      If anyone is unable to access it, let me know.

      From the abstract: “Analysis of these sales revealed an alternate explanation for dispossession in Hawai‘i: the loss of governance. Ultimately this is a story of dispossession, how it has been understood, misunderstood, and re-understood in Hawai‘i.”

      A contest for governance between certain Hawaiians and certain other Hawaiians begins in 1887 but speeds up in 1893 when the United States Government war on and occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom removes the ability of Hawaiian-Hawaiians to protect themselves and their rights to property through a Hawaiian-Hawaiian government. The invasion and occupation gave an opportunity to traitorous judges and lawyers in litigation aimed at perverting the meaning of the legislation to effectuate the perversion. Since there was no Hawaiian Kingdom legislature or government to reverse the perverse decisions the traitors in robes and suits could claim the law meant something other than what it did. The perversion of the Mahele occurred post invasion and occupation. You see today how the US Supreme Court perverts the meaning of the US constitution to dead-letter voting rights. The traitors in robes on the bench after 17 January 1893 performed the same intellectually dishonest tricks to land grab.

      • Perhaps it would be more accurate to say “those who actually dominated them.” By this statement I am attributing shared accountability to those specific individuals that attempted to overthrow the monarchy as well as their ancestors and other members of their religious and civic groups who influenced the development of Hawaiian legislation in ways that ultimately resulted in the domination, exploitation and subjugation of Hawaiian natives as a group by non-natives.

        I agree that Hawaiians gave up their religious beliefs prior to Missionary influence. I’m not at all suggesting that Hawaiian law be based on ancient Hawaiian religion. What I’m suggesting is that perhaps we can consider the possibility of enacting laws that do not attempt to derive authority or legitimacy from any religious belief, yet continue to protect religious freedom. Christianity may have “won” against Hawaiian paganism, but if the kapu system can be erased from the law so can God, whether Christian or otherwise. This can certainly be accomplished without erasing God from having a meaningful purpose in people’s lives.

        “Prove that as written and when interpreted by Hawaiian Kingdom courts that [the Great Mahele] was unjust.”

        HK courts may have found it to be just, but that doesn’t make it universally so, neither can it be assumed to be in the best interest of the people. You are certainly correct that “[t]he perversion of the Mahele occurred post invasion and occupation.” However, common sense and simple math informs us that the respective percentages of land distributed to the different classes were never equal even prior to the invasion. If you are maintaining that such gross inequality is not injustice then there is no point in arguing with you. Fortunately your analysis can be absolutely on point and the will of the people can nevertheless erase the entire Mahele and replace it with something that they prefer as if it never even existed. Conversely, if they like it they will keep it. However, it seems unnecessarily restrictive to deny the people the opportunity to hold a referendum to adopt new laws and elect a new government in the absence of a functioning legitimate government. I suspect that if we are truly honest with ourselves then we will arrive at the honest conclusion that all members of a community are equally responsible to malama the land, equally entitled to access the land in perpetuity, and the surpluses, if any, should be owned in common, whether by the state, its political subdivisions or in some other fashion in accordance with the will of the people. I fail to see how the Mahele was an improvement on the previous system of land tenure except that it favored the individual over the collective, and it allowed Hawaiian subjects and ali’i to permanently divest themselves of their lands and in doing so, abdicate their kuleana to preserve it for future generations.

  5. I would like to clarify a point from a previous comment regarding the possibility of holding a referendum. I was referring to a ‘constitutive’ referendum rather than a ‘constitutional’ referendum. The purpose would be to create an entirely new legal order that would be accepted as legitimate, resulting in the formation of the legitimate successor government of the Hawaiian nation-state in continuity. Naturally such a referendum would be repugnant to the existing Hawaiian Constitution because it aims to replace it. However, presumably the new legal order would be an expression of the informed ‘will of the People’ and thus at least equally as legitimate as the old legal order being replaced.

    • Keahi, hands down you are the new Spin Master. I have no doubt you are going to keep spinning and spinning. Steve was nice and diplomatic. I’m not, I call it as I see it and I see a traitor to the Hawaiian Kingdom.

  6. Kekoa, this is an open forum. There is no spin, only facts and opinions. A traitor to the Hawaiian Kingdom would have to commit actions or at least have the intent to commit or incite actions, not merely sharing and receiving ideas on what is possible or probable. For example, any officer or even an employee of the State of Hawaii, including any County could be considered a traitor. I am definitely not that. I’m merely offering ideas on what COULD be done.

    I invite you to participate and disprove, correct or clarify what I have stated that might otherwise be misleading for the benefit of other readers of this blog. I expect that you won’t and instead you will continue to make blanket accusations like you just did and leave the heavy lifting and much needed dialogue to more dedicated folks like Steve and Keanu. I have nothing to hide or to protect, and make no mistake I am a true Hawaiian patriot like my father, his parents and our ancestors prior. Anyone with common sense and the ability to think critically can see that my intentions are not to mislead, but to educate, inform, engage and stimulate others.

    If you falsely accuse as you just did, I will defend and have a right to do so. I will not give up on liberating my beloved ‘aina and neither will my children and all their descendants, and there will be MANY. So even if you try to silence me, there will be more of me to follow, and we will not rest until our Hawaii is back in hands that can be trusted with the kuleana to properly care for her and all our people.

    • Keahi, I’m not going to play your spin game. Steve played your game and responded with excellent critics of your posts and what did you do in response? Spin three more post just like the first. You can claim you are only sharing ideas of what could be done. That’s just a guise you hide behind so you can spin your treasonous web of misinformation. The whole point of your post is about replacing the Acting Gov’t of the Hawaiian Kingdom in order to change laws that you don’t agree with. To promote an illegitimate way to remove them is not patriotic it’s treasonous. Go check yourself.

      • Kekoa, this is not a game. None of what I stated has been refuted. What exactly is misinformation? If you actually cared about spreading misinformation you would correct my inaccuracies, if any, for the benefit of others. But you fail to do so. Even Steve was willing to engage in an attempt to explain precisely where he did not agree. It’s sad that you fail to even do that. Fortunately there are intelligent readers of this blog who can see that your accusations have no merit.

        Do you even realize that one of the objectives of the Acting Gov’t of the Hawaiian Kingdom is to replace itself with a successor? Just because a potential solution is not expressly permissible (or even forbidden) under Hawaiian Kingdom law doesn’t make it illegitimate. Many legitimate governments were established outside a pre-existing legal order. The government of the United States of America is a very well-known example, but also the government of Iraq more recently – both for very good reasons! Hawaiians have the same right.

        I can say with certainty that Hawaiian Kingdom law will experience a major overhaul regardless of when or how that happens. I’m simply suggesting that such a major overhaul can indeed occur WITH consent of the Hawaiian People AND prior to full withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Hawaiian Islands. I welcome anyone to refute that possibility with a rational argument, although I doubt that anyone will.

        Some may wonder why I am stirring the pot. The answer is to accelerate the process of liberating Hawaii. I am concerned that occupation may not end during Keanu’s lifetime and there won’t be others competent to take his place. This would create a prime opportunity for our sovereignty and national resources to be exploited yet again by foreign interests, or even by a domestic minority. There are more immediate solutions to ensure that our right to fulfill our kuleana to malama our ‘aina will be restored and maintained.

  7. Yes I concur, folks are confused by the language. I think we should first realize where the language of the words used are defined. Websters, Black Laws, legalese etc. As I read a sentence I may see multiple jurisdictions. Juris=correct law Diction=words. LAW= L-land A-air W-water. Itʻs important to know which jurisdiction we are referring to when presented with these documents. It may or may not (probably not) make it not so confusing. Words are spells. Whoʻs doing the spelling here?

    • So when the word “people” is used: “legal right of (people) to determine their own destiny in the international order.” Is it referring to people as in an entity, legal entity or a man as in living man of flesh and blood? Theres much more but lets start and end here.

      • “People” refers to “nation” or a group in the national sense. In `ōlelo Hawai`i, the correct word would be “lāhui”.

  8. Brandolini’s Law is self-enforcing.

    Pass on responding to fact-free rantish spiels. I can explains it to people but I cannot understand it for them.

    I see nothing of substance to respond to. Some stir the pot. Good faith stirring can be constructive as it brings out error. Others do something into the pot which also starts with “s” but spoils the soup.

    An example:
    “However, it seems unnecessarily restrictive to deny the people the opportunity to hold a referendum to adopt new laws and elect a new government in the absence of a functioning legitimate government.”

    One needs a functioning institution, almost always a government, to have a referendum which returns legitimate results. duh. There’s Magical thinking and there’s real world thinking. The real world wins over time.

    What entity administers the referendum in the application of what law?
    Referendums don’t ‘hold themselves’.
    A constellation of laws, regulations, and procedures and a cadre of competent individuals are needed to have a credible referendum.

    Referendums and plebiscites under occupation are a bad idea.
    Ask the 1938 Austrians.

    Not an easy read but worth a look. A MONOGRAPH ON PLEBISCITES With a Collection of Official Documents BY SARAH WAMBAUGH,

    Signing off now.

  9. “One needs a functioning institution, almost always a government, to have a referendum which returns legitimate results. duh. There’s Magical thinking and there’s real world thinking. The real world wins over time.”

    Keanu succeeded in created an acting government under the doctrine of necessity. The United States government created a provisional authority for Iraq, presumably also under the doctrine of necessity, which ultimately led to a functioning institution that held a constitutive referendum and the formation of a legitimate government. Israel was formed out of thin air under a similar authority. The source of legitimacy may be elusive but there’s no magic involved and no religion necessary. Real world thinking plus real world action.

    My point is that we are in a crisis of legitimacy and until we have a government that is functioning AND legitimate AND has effective exclusive control over some actual territory, it’s still anyone’s game to get us to that point.

    “Referendums and plebiscites under occupation are a bad idea.”

    This isn’t 1938 and referendums as a source of legitimacy are trending. My suggestion is to hold the referendum in non-occupied territory, although a referendum held in occupied territory is still valid. It might be a bad idea but I believe it’s the most likely scenario and my suggestion is to prepare for it and attempt to influence it. Once the big investors are in position to get rich from Hawaiian independence it will be too late.

  10. Why are Gibraltar, Western Sahara, West Papua, Hong Kong, Macao, Kosovo, Chuuk, Bougainville and Catalonia similar to the Hawaiian archipelago?

    The people of each of these are entitled to exercise self determination to secede from a larger state in violation of its territorial integrity. In the case of the Hawaiian archipelago the country is the Hawaiian Kingdom fka Sandwich Islands. International experts will disagree as to whether this right may be unilaterally exercised so I will defer to Professor Alfred de Zayas on the matter of unilateral action. However, mutual consent is definitely possible especially if there is a mutual benefit to secession and an agreement to cooperate.

    For those that argue that the entire archipelago cannot secede because it’s too large, then perhaps one island at a time is more palatable. The island of Midway is perhaps the most interesting candidate for secession because, like Gibraltar, it’s subject to competing claims by 2 different states. Like the Chagos Islands of Mauritius, it remains uninhabited by native islanders because the United States excludes them by force. However, unlike the remaining islands, the State of Hawaii does not claim Midway as “incorporated” into the union and therefore the President and/or Congress can release its claim without major opposition from the State of Hawaii or any other State. The U.S. is also prohibited from simply annexing it to Hawaii because it was never conquered or yielded by an instrument of cession, whether by treaty, fake treaty or otherwise.

    Note that that there are benefits to secession but there are also drawbacks. For example, the new state will not be considered to be in continuity with the parent state, which means that reparations due to the old state pursuant to international law will be forfeited by the new state. Additionally, the new state must achieve international recognition on its own and cannot claim prior international recognition. Furthermore, for purposes of legitimacy, the “people” of the new state should be prepared to defend their position that they are a distinct people with a historical connection to the land seceding and bound by common language, ethnicity, ancestry, religion, etc. A claim to secession based on merely inhabiting the land today is not enough due to the colonial history.

    One major benefit to forming a new state without extinguishing the old state is that the new state can attempt to gain international recognition and use it’s political position to assist the old state. The new state could even agree to allow itself to be subsequently annexed by treaty by the old state once the independence of the old state has been restored.

  11. Another Brandolini event:

    “Why are Gibraltar, Western Sahara, West Papua, Hong Kong, Macao, Kosovo, Chuuk, Bougainville and Catalonia similar to the Hawaiian archipelago?”

    “Why .. are …. similar?”

    Objection to the question, vague, and assumes facts not in evidence.

    First: It is vague. “Similar” has no apparent meaning here.

    The question as stated cannot be answered. They are not similar in any material way. Asking “why” makes no sense as they aren’t.

    They aren’t.

    Gibraltar is a mountain, West Sahara a desert, West Papua a jungle, Hong Kong and Macao, cities, Kosovo…. and so on. They may even be ‘countries’; They may even be ‘peoples’. The point of lack of clarity has been made. In law, and reality, an apples to apples comparison can be considered. Historically and legally lumping these things together is like comparing apples to lizards to koala bears to the platypus to cats.

    To make sense of this claim one has to ‘rewrite’ it and insert ‘the peoples’ between “Why” and “Gibraltar…”

    Assuming you mean “peoples”. Same answer: They aren’t.

    The word “similar” provides a bit of an escape hatch to the charge of lying but that just means the conviction is for vagueness is solid.

    Similar how? Not the ‘peoples’ of these countries [assuming for purposes of argument they are each a country which isn’t proven] in terms of status as measured by international law.

    These populations or peoples do not have the same legal status but then what you mean by ‘similar’ is not clear.

    Hawaiian Kingdom: people form a state recognized by other states.

    All the others [Kosovo, which has recently obtained the status of statehood but even then not similar but same] are not and never were independent sovereign entitles [Catalonia might possibly be an exception and merits, if one wants to bother [no offense to any Catalonians reading this whom I wish good luck to in obtaining the legal independence that the Hawaiian Islands already has and which Spain recognized, closer examination of its history]

    Chuuk is an excellent example of why you were in error when you gave your ‘explanation’ of referendums before. If you mention Chuuk, why not Quebec? The Bougainville situation appears to be identical [not ‘similar’ but identical] to Chuuk and Quebec [Functioning non-foreign government administering the laws of the State/country.

    I would not want the lying USG to manage a referendum as it did in 1959?

    I recommend the Canadian Supreme Court opinion on the matter for those who want to learn about the law. [].
    on secession, not deoccupation. Rely on Lenzerini and Schabas.

    None of these places were ever a “State”.

    Including Kosovo puzzles me. Not mentioning Palestine puzzles me. Kosovo is recognized as a State by many other states. Palestinians are being killed, murdered I’d say, in the quest to be recognized. The Hawaiian Islands had and continue to have the full recognition that the Kosovars are struggling for and appear to be achieving, as the Palestinians continue to struggle. Yet your ‘argument’ is to abandon what these peoples who’ve have not had States, are working very hard to get, recognized statehood. What position would Kamehemeha I and K III [who was able to get independence without bloodshed but bloodshed was a real risk I suspect the Hawaiians feared] take on this issue? Mind reading the dead is speculative, but I know how I’d place my bets. I doubt they’d wish to become legal “Indians” even though Cook referred to them as such.

    That other governments/states around the world have succumbed to US lies of ‘treaty annexation’ [go here for the “official lie”!AlWZVnn76RaUnTZnBu4XPBAJTkl_?e=gaOUDM
    is slowly being recognized by the governments that were lied to.

    Surrendering such a strong strategic legal, and equitable, position, unless one has to, seems something a patriot wouldn’t do.

    No one qualified to has contested Lenzerini’s opinion. You don’t show any evidence of even engaging it. From what is thought/written it isn’t clear whether you’ve read it. Though it is clear you don’t understand it well enough to point out any error in fact or law he makes.

    1. if you don’t know whether your assertion is true or not then you are guilty of telling falsehoods.

    2. If you know this to be untrue, it is a lie and that makes you a liar if you intend to say they have the same international legal status. Liars can be completely disregarded, indeed, ignoring liars is the safest approach so as to no being tainted.

    3. If you are unconcerned about truth or falsity, then it’s just bullshit being put out there because you want to be seen in a certain way.

    As Harry Frankfurt describes it one who “offers a description of a certain state of affairs without genuinely submitting to the constraints which endeavor to provide an accurate representation of reality imposes. [The] fault is not that [you] fail to get things right, but that [you are] not even trying. [Link:!AlWZVnn76RaUnTc1fpFnFzXA02ry?e=Bn89CD%5D at page 4.

    If it’s mere opinion, then it is unqualified and unsupported by the facts. The more you write, the clearer it is that if you were a tailor you would, ala Procrustes [] cut the people to fit the ‘clothes’, not the clothes to fit the ‘people’.

    If one gets the facts right, it is possible to get the law right or at least understand what is disputed and where one went wrong. The accuracy of the work can be checked.

    If one doesn’t get the facts right, it is pretty much impossible to accurately figure out what law applies.

    If one makes “shit” up to fit an argument. one is ignorable.

    Brandolini’s law for the rest of whatever it is it: falsehood, speculative legal-political fiction, lies, or bullshit.

    If any of the links don’t work email me at

    • “Self determination’ is not a mere phrase, it is an imperative principle of action which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril.”
      -President Woodrow Wilson

      You can keep citing Brandolini’s law with the expectation that readers will simply assume that I am wrong or just trolling. However, I’m not interested in appealing to folks that are prone to make that kind of foolish assumption. There are many intelligent individuals like you and Keanu that read this blog and they aren’t willing to skip the critical thinking.

      To clarify, the territories mentioned are all ‘similar’ in the sense that the People of each of the territories mentioned are entitled to self-determination leading to secession despite that each territory mentioned is also claimed by existing recognized States. Spain is a state that claims both Gibraltar and Catalonia. Morocco is a state that claims Western Sahara. Indonesia is a state that claims West Papua. China is a state that claims Hong Kong and Macao. Serbia is a state that claims Kosovo. The Federated States of Micronesia is a state that claims Chuuk. Papua New Guinea is a state that claims Bougainville. The HK is a recognized state and the Hawaiian archipelago is a portion of the territory claimed by HK but entitled to secession from it, whether in whole or in part. I didn’t mention Palestine because it’s already a state not merely part of a state and qualified to secede from it. Frankly I don’t know enough about Palestine to know whether there are territories of Palestine that could secede via self-determination of the Peoples there so I won’t comment either way. I agree that Quebec belongs on the list, as well as the Kingdom of Scotland, which is analogous to the Kingdom of Kauai and Niihau. I understand Canada’s position on Quebec and I happen to disagree with it. Quebec does not need permission from Canada to secede, but it won’t simply be handed over by Canada either. However, the danger with denying unilateral secession is that it could lead to a war (not necessarily bloody but possibly) in which even more territory is lost by the parent State as an indemnity. This could happen if Kauai/Niihau demands unilateral independence from HK and the demand is refused. Why should Kauai be less worthy of independence than Catalonia? Of course it’s not. Sounds like something the United States might say about California or China might say about Tibet. Surely the HK is not so imperialistic. Moreover, a person can swear allegiance to more than one nation, aka “dual nationality”, particularly if they have ancestors from both places (i.e. descend from both Kaumuali’i and Kamehameha lines).

      You mention 3 possibilities for sharing ideas but the 4th and most likely scenario that keeps people sharing is that they know, or at least believe, that they are representing the truth until shown otherwise. I’m open to the possibility that I am wrong but if no one is willing or able to articulate a correction then I will stand on my positions. Furthermore, I will assume that my positions are valid because I believe that there are readers of this blog that care enough about the future of the Hawaiian Kingdom to correct misinformation before it spreads and causes problems. If not then I will assume you are #3 and you don’t care to correct what you purport to be false. That being the case, the burden of responsibility appears to be on the person that is aware of misinformation but refuses to correct it. I understand that our time is valuable and we have other priorities, yet I’ve set aside the time to post here. Perhaps it’s truth that you fear because it spoils your plans built on deception. I hope that’s not the case.

  12. Clarifying President Woodrow Wilson.

    Thomas Woodrow Wilson, that Wilson, you say?

    It took me all of about 40 minutes to track this down what I knew was there about President Woodrow Wilson.

    He is not an ‘authority’ on much of anything except lying for political gain and how racists govern.

    He’s a politician not a law scholar. Not even much good as a historian of the US.

    Education: political science degree,

    Racist, ..”his time in office was one of unprecedented regression with concern to racial equality. Several historians have spotlighted examples in the public record of Wilson’s racist policies and political appointments, such as the segregationists in his Cabinet. Other sources claim Wilson defended segregation on “scientific” grounds in private and describe him as a man who “loved to tell racist ‘darky’ jokes about black Americans.”

    Wilson was an apologist for slavery and the southern redemption movement; he was also one of the nation’s foremost promoters of the lost cause mythology.[11] At Princeton, Wilson used his authority to actively discourage the admission of African-Americans.[1]

    In 1903, Theodore Roosevelt appointed William Crum, an African-American Republican, as a customs officer for the port of Charleston, South Carolina. Wilson, like many white Southerners bitterly opposed Crum’s appointment based on his race. During his remarks before a Princeton alumni group, Wilson made a vulgar joke, the punchline of which called Crum, “coon” and that President Roosevelt “would put a ‘coon’ in it.”[22] []

    Wilson allowed the continuing imposition of segregation inside the federal bureaucracy.

    Wilson’s election was celebrated by southern segregationists.[1]

    He’d been in office 5 years before half-assedly ‘condemning’ lynching.

    1918 July 26
    President Wilson Finally Denounces Mob Violence, Lynching

    In the midst of World War I, President Woodrow Wilson on this day finally released a statement to the media condemning mob violence. Significantly, however, he did not make a public speech, which would have had far more impact on public attitudes. fter the U.S. entered World War I on April 6, 1917, the country was beset by mob violence against anti-war activists, socialists, alleged “disloyal” people and radical labor unions. Mob violence also included race riots, especially the East St. Louis race riot that erupted on July 2, 1917. Despite pleas that he speak out, President Woodrow Wilson refused to publicly denounce mob violence until this day, a year after the East St. Louis riot.

    President Wilson: “I therefore very earnestly and solemnly beg that the governors of all the States, the law officers of every community, and, above all, the men and women of every community in the United States, all who revere America and wish to keep her name without stain or reproach, will cooperate–not passively merely, but actively and watchfully—to make an end of this disgraceful evil. It cannot live where the community does not countenance it.”

    He could have called out the National Guard like Eisenhower did for school desegregation. But he didn’t instead he screened “Birth of a Nation” in the White House.

    The film was controversial even before its release and has remained so ever since; it has been called “the most controversial film ever made in the United States”[12]:198 and “the most reprehensibly racist film in Hollywood history”.[…The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is portrayed as a heroic force, necessary to preserve American values, protect the women, and maintain white supremacy.[14][15]

    Didn’t much believe in ‘self-determination for non-whites

    By not supporting the non-white Chinese in their self-determination efforts against the invaders he contributed to the conditions resulting in the CCP of today. Of course he had help.

    Invader and occupier of Haiti []

    During the occupation, Haiti had three new presidents, though the United States ruled as a military regime led by Marines and the US-created Haitian gendarmerie through martial law. Two major rebellions occurred during this period, resulting in several thousand Haitians killed and numerous human rights violations – including torture and summary executions – by Marines and the gendarmerie. Corvée labor was utilized for massive infrastructure projects that resulted in hundreds to thousands of deaths. Under the occupation, most Haitians continued to live impoverished lives while the United States re-established power into the hands of a select minority of Haitians,

    Invader of Mexico to thwart a peoples revolution and liar about it. Avoid the Use of the Word Intervention”: Wilson and Lansing on the U.S. Invasion of Mexico

    In 1916, Francisco Villa, leader of the peasant uprisings in northern Mexico, raided Columbus, New Mexico, in an attempt to expose Mexican government collaboration with the United States. President Woodrow Wilson responded by ordering an invasion of Mexico. Five years after the beginning of the Mexican Revolution, which was characterized by hope for social change as well as death, hunger, and violence, many Mexicans did not welcome further involvement by the U.S. In the following correspondence, Secretary of State Robert Lansing and President Wilson described the need to carefully frame the invasion as a defense of U.S. borders rather than interference in the Mexican Revolution. The resulting invasion, led by General John Pershing, was a total fiasco. It failed to locate Villa and increased anti-U.S. sentiment and Mexican nationalist resolve.

    It is widely accepted that Wilson racially disliked the Irish, apparently they were not quite white enough yet;
    abandoned the Kurds;
    betrayed the Arabs. all at Versailles.

    or whites toying with socialism.

    invader of Russia [ignoring his own ‘advice’] [,_North_Russia]

    What you purvey is a toxic, confusing, mix of as much “misinformation” as “non-information” so I stick with assessment #3 Bullshit.

    Though upon reflection another possibility arises.

    #4 Not even wrong.

    What is being promoted “isn’t even wrong”.

    Wrong is in the ball park.

    Wrong tries to be right.

    Whatever it is that is being promoted is not in the ball park, not even in the parking lot for the ball park, not even in the same zip code as the ball park.

    And to continue the baseball metaphor, three strikes and ……

    It’s hard not to laugh.

    ‘Not even wrong’.

    It’s like being at an accident scene with the cops saying “Move along, there’s nothing to see here.”

  13. Your argument against the statement I quoted is an Ad Hominem fallacy (attacking the person rather than the position). My point is that Wilson was right about self-determination despite being quite ‘wrong’ on other important issues as you pointed out in your rant. The quote had nothing to do with whether Woodrow Wilson is an authority on the subject of self-determination. Again, if you want to consult an expert on self-determination I suggest Professor Alfred de Zayas. I am certain that he would support the position that Kauai & Niihau have as much right to secede as a separate Kingdom from the HK as Scotland does from the UK. International law didn’t freeze in 1959. It has evolved quite a bit since then.

    Again, I must remind you that if you aren’t willing to take the time to correct, you are responsible for the spread of any misinformation which you are aware of that I am not.

    Also, please note that I have been polite and friendly thus far, despite the style that you have chosen to communicate. I don’t mind that much actually, but for the sake of mellowing the vibe I thought I might point that out and offer you the opportunity to adjust.

  14. For those that are interested in reading more about the right of self-determination:

    Paragraph #19 (p. 8) states:

    In countless resolutions the General Assembly has affirmed the right of self-determination, notably resolution 2625 (XXV), by which the Assembly adopted the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, whose preamble states “that the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples constitutes a significant contribution to contemporary international law, and that its effective application is of paramount importance for the promotion of friendly relations among States.” The Declaration recognizes that the foreign subjection, domination and exploitation of peoples violate their human rights and pose a threat to international peace and security. Among its principles the Declaration stipulates: “Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples … of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence. In their actions against, and resistance to, such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of their right to self-determination, such peoples are entitled to seek and to receive support in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter.”

    -end quote-

    Thus, if we assume that HK law and U.S. law must comport with the aforementioned Declaration, then both the HK government and the U.S. government are precluded from interfering with the right of the aboriginal Hawaiian People to exercise their right to secede all or part of their territory from an existing State, whether the State of the HK or, from the perspective of U.S. law, the United States. Furthermore, the same right also applies to the native People of Kauai and Niihau, being a distinct People, should they choose to exercise it, whether internally (achieving autonomy within an existing State) or externally (forming a new independent State).

    An alternative view is that the HK never agreed to abide by the Declaration and therefore has no duty to refrain from any forcible action to deprive peoples of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence. That being the case, it appears logical that the right to self-determination be exercised (peacefully, of course) at a time when the HK is unable to use force to defend its territorial integrity against legitimate efforts to secede in violation of existing HK law.

    Rather than framing the issue of self-determination as one of conflict, I suggest it be viewed as an opportunity for the various Peoples of Hawaii to cooperate so they may achieve the common goal of ending the U.S. occupation. For example, the Kauai/Niihau People are a distinct subclass of the aboriginal Hawaiian People, who are a distinct subclass of the HK national People. I use the term ‘subclass’ to describe the population in general but there may be some individuals that are part of a particular ‘subclass’ but not included in the parent class. For example, an aboriginal ‘Niihauan’ that somehow lost HK nationality would technically be part of the Kauai/Niihau subclass and aboriginal Hawaiian subclass, but not the HK subclass. There is also an opportunity for those that may identify as a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii (having had previous international recognition), as well as those who identify with the People of the Territory of Hawaii (on the UN list of non-self-governing territory at one time and thus entitled to certain rights). Each of these groups may have a claim to specific territory that may or may not overlap with the claims of another group. The People of the State of Hawaii is also a group, as well as the People of the United States in general (not necessarily entitled to self-determination as to Hawaii but may assert claims with respect to ambiguous territories such as Midway). The Native Hawaiian community as defined under U.S. law is yet another group. Furthermore, some individuals may prefer to belong to more than one group should that option be available. It is quite conceivable that a person could seek to simultaneously be a member of 10 different groups, each with separate claims to different sections of Hawaiian territory. These various groups need not, and should not, wait to organize and negotiate with each other until the U.S. occupation has ended. Organization and negotiation can begin immediately so the various groups can effectively work together to accomplish mutual and reciprocal objectives. The end result may be multiple independent states, a federation or complete integration of the various groups, with or without binding commitments to permit mandatory secession to one or more groups if specific conditions are met. There are certain elements of the American population and other foreign interests that would absolutely support the withdrawal of U.S. sovereignty from Hawaii if their interests were considered. These elements should be identified and consulted as well.

    As to the Native Hawaiian community as defined under U.S. law, perhaps the optimal strategy is to organize it’s ‘Native Hawaiian governing entity’ as a non-profit organization formed under the laws of (and subordinate to) a non-U.S. government that either seeks international recognition (Kingdom of Kauai & Niihau, hypothetical aboriginal government of the Hawaiian Islands, etc.) or already has international recognition (i.e. HK, Republic of Hawaii, etc.) rather than the ‘Native Hawaiian governing entity’ itself attempting to achieve international recognition.

  15. Ignorance in regalia

    “As to the Native Hawaiian community as defined under U.S. law,”.

    He/she thinks we are in the US.
    Uhhh. Have you not been paying attention?

    The USG is here, US legal domain ends thousands of miles away.

    If you are in the Islands look down at your feet and say This is the Hawaiian Islands, this is not the US.”
    If you are in say, Las Vegas, look down at your feet and say “This is the US, this is not Hawaii.”

    He/she should step away from the plate until he/she knows where he/she is.
    Oh, annd lose the phrase “optimal strategy”.

    Strategies take us from point A to point B. Bu

    If one doesn’t know where one came from [or more importantly ‘is’] getting anywhere is a challenge.

    Since we are quoting individuals for ‘authority’ on a topic, regardless of qualifications,
    I’ll paraphrase Yogi Berra that great foreign Italian-American baseball player.

    “He/she’s lost, but making good time.”

    “You’ve got to be very careful if you don’t know where you’re going, because you might not get there.”

    bada boom.

    If he/she wishes to cease being referred to as he/she, he/she needs to identify himself/herself. Step into the light.
    If he/she has, I missed it and thus confess ignorance on this point.

  16. No one said that we are in the U.S. I’m talking about U.S. law and the definition of “Native Hawaiian”, which is applicable in the U.S. This has little or nothing to do with the Hawaiian Islands or U.S. occupied territory, yet there are U.S. laws that apply to “Native Hawaiians” as defined by U.S. law, whether they live in Washington D.C. or otherwise, just as there are U.S. laws that apply to foreign spouses of U.S. citizens. This is a real issue for many aboriginal Hawaiians, or didn’t you realize that?

    bada boom

  17. Are there parallels between the liberation of Morocco in 1956 and the end of the occupation of HK? Can we liberate our nation using a similar strategy? Would that be considered a revolution or not? Was it a revolution in the case of Morocco?

Leave a Reply