August 11, 2014
Dear Secretary Kerry:
Aloha and welcome to the Hawaiian Islands. I am a Professor of Law at the University of Hawaiʻi William S. Richardson School of Law. I am writing in my individual capacity and on behalf of others. The views expressed here are not those of the University of Hawai’i or the School of Law.
Since you will be in Honolulu, August 13, 2014, I ask whether you would be willing to meet with the Hawaiian community. The purpose of this meeting would be to clarify a legal issue of foreign relations that has become of critical importance to all in Hawaii these past months.
The Department of Interior, in June and July of this year held 15 statewide hearings as to whether to proceed with rulemaking that would result in administrative action recognizing Native Hawaiians as a federally recognized tribe. The testimony taken revealed that the single most important issue to the hundreds testifying was whether the United States has sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands and whether the Kingdom of Hawai’i, a sovereign and independent nation continues to exist. This is a legal, not a political issue. We seek that you ask the Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, to opine on whether the Kingdom of Hawai’i, as a subject of international law, ceases to exist in light of the international rule of law regarding the presumption of continuity.
The continued existence of the Kingdom would render the Department of Interior’s proposal legally questionable. The existence of the Kingdom raises the question that Hawai’i is occupied by the United States in violation of international and United States law. As a result, such occupation has extraordinary ramifications as to current United States foreign policy around the world because of the Kingdom of Hawai’i’s treaties with other independent nations. Officials of the Departments of Interior and Justice who represented the United States at these hearings did not answer these questions deferring to the Department of State as the appropriate agency.
These issues were also raised by a State official, Dr. Crabbe, Chief Executive Officer of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, an agency of the State of Hawai’i, in a letter, made public, to you. Although that letter was withdrawn by trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, its relevancy was affirmed by hundreds of those testifying who cited to it. It contains a more detailed explanation of points raised herein. A copy of Dr. Crabbe’s complete letter of May 5, 2014 can be found at: http://www.oha.org/news/oha%E2%80%99s-top-executive-makes-formal-request-us-department-state-legal-opinion-current-status-hawai (last checked August 4, 2014 4:10 PM.)
Moreover, a more detailed letter of mine, further discussing these issues, is being sent to your office in Washington D.C.
I can be reached through my offices at the University of Hawaii. Mahalo and Respectfully yours, Professor Williamson B.C. Chang, William S. Richardson School of Law, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Williamson Chang,
Professor of Law, University of Hawaii
Professor Williamson Chang was born and raised in Honolulu, Hawai‘i. He graduated from Princeton University with degrees in Asian Studies and from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Thereafter, he attended the University of California, Berkeley [Boalt Hall] where he was an editor of both the California Law Review and the Ecology Law Quarterly. He clerked for U.S. District Court Judge Dick Yin Wong in Honolulu and began teaching at the University of Hawai`i the following year.
Mahalo nui loa me ke Aloha ia Prof Williamson Chang. Imua kakou i ka Pono no Hawai’i. KeAkua pu me ka Hawai’i legal team apau. Aloha keAkua~God IS Love.
Bravo, Professor Chang, bravo! The pressure is on for the U.S. Government! Either provide legal overwhelming evidence that Hawaii is legally U.S. sovereign territory, or do what is required under International Law to end this occupation now! I would personally hate for you to be FORCED to do it!
I sure would like to see an actual copy of this letter you sent!
Professor Chang has a link on this article at the bottom of the page you can down load.
If US law was violated as Professor Chang asserts, why are we Kanaka NOT hammering this point to US citizens and to the US Congress? There is today a profound aversion to US constitution or so called “American laws” that in my opinion prevent Kanaka form engaging the US on the constitutional questions. This only creates a void for misguided policy and for mavericks who want to act prematurely and presumptuously on behalf of “all Hawaiians.” Our Queen made it clear where we are to “present the facts” and for what outcome.
I think that is the next step. I don’t know if it was clearly understood until recently. Hague and Geneva conventions, supreme court rulings, Office of Legal counsel opinion, progress made by the Acting Government. It all starts to add up and become overwhelming and mind boggling why it has not been corrected.
My personal experience with telling everyone I know, denial! Then you got to go into education mode. Maybe everyone start putting stickers on your vehicles directing people to Hawaiiankingdom.org.
Americans are the prime example of “Americanization”, what we Hawaiians are complaining about. I was there, once.
E kala mai. I was generalizing. I think the reality is, a lot of Americans that live in Hawaii would apply to be Hawaii once they knew the facts.
It would be my honor. America is not ‘united’, never has been, only divided by the lies, theft, genocide and insane ones think they own everything and every BODY. NO more slavery on stolen lands. Mahalo to all in the Kingdom of Hawaii ~ Aloha Aina
The problem is we have created a vacuum by refusing to consider a third process which is neither fed rec or de occupation. his type of vacuum created a void where some very misleading narratives about de occupation have yet to be fully reconciled with the facts.
Americans might be repulsed by the idea that we kanaka want to believe there is a war occurring in Hawaii where genocide and ethnic cleansing are daily problems here. Moreover it does not help our cause to appear anti American, anti western, and revisionists all at once.
I stand by the 1864 Hawaiian Constitution. It is that document that gives our people a voice in the global community. It is that document that holds our rights in perpetuity until the day the wrong is made right. Then we can vote on amendments.
I think all efforts, at this point, are to get the Hawaiians to willingly replace our lawful constitution. That would extinquish all of our kupunas hard work and the amazing nation they created for us.
Education is key. Any Kanaka who is pushing for replacing this document is ignorant of what it represents or pilau, in my humble opinion.
Mahalo nui loa Professor Chang
Mahalo, Williamson Chang. Did any of US government folks ever respond to your letter or Dr. Keanu Sai’s communications recently??? If so, please post. We are open ears…
Aloha Noa, would you specify this third process you mentioned. Is it based on law or legal doctrine?
Mahalo Kekoa. If you will consider that our Queen appealed directly to the President and to Congress, and that in her petition she also expressed the belief that the facts being presented to both Congress and the good people of America would result in the US righting the wrong. Now consider that OHA, since its inception, has never called into question whether Annexation or Statehood was properly promulgated or whether or not it is able to stand up to constitutional scrutiny regarding its claim of power over the Islands. Its the same sort of questioning Crabb attempted but instead appealing exclusively to the US Constitution to compel Americans and Congress to do the right thing. OHA officials have been defending entitlements strictly within the framework of statehood, which explains why they took the position they did to ignore the Constitutional questions and go along with the false and unconstitutional construction the1959 statehood act. Nowhere do we find Kanaka, state officials, or educators pressing the constitutional questions. This other process I mentioned calls into question the nature of and how the US holds power over Kanaka Maoli, the Islands etc. It is easy to prove that the US holds Hawaii unilaterally even despite statehood. Chang calls it circling the wagons where I presume he seeʻs a two pronged attack which I still question. I try to envision redress without international law partly because I see too many people doing the same with international law.
“Is it based on law or legal doctrine?”
Both law and legal doctrine but also pre UN history. Lots of lessons to learn from history I think.
Aloha Noa. I’m struggling to understand this third process but don’t know any action is more important than education today.
And by education, I mean critical research and sharing of FACTS about 1) our history, 2) how the US (fed/state) and sadly members of our own community have and continue to capitalize on the illegal occupation, 3) why state/fed rec efforts persist and always with the sense of great urgency, and 4) how other countries have achieved or been challenged by political and economic independence.
The more I know about all four, the clearer the two paths become for me. It’s either true redress which is de-occupation or negotiating the degree to which we maintain the status quo.
As a tactical matter, Dr. Crabbe’s, Dr. Sai’s & Dr. Chang’s letters are great. And to question constitutionality within US domestic law is great, too. But I don’t imagine any US or state body conceding and willingly granting us any meaningful redress, do you? For me, it’s more to put US authorities on public notice – and the best thing about these open letters is the reframing of the questions for our own lahui. It challenges notions fed us by OHA and others who suggest we should be bargaining and congratulate ourselves for the best deal we can get from those who really have no lawful authority over us.
Anyway, I’m still learning myself. This is a lot of stuff to grapple with, but if our ali’i and kupuna who signed the Ku’e were alive today, I think it would be pretty easy for them to decide. I’m still trying to retrace their footsteps and ground myself in the facts of today.
Education, education, education. That others are urging we act on fed rec or other things does not trigger some false sense of urgency in me. Education threatens the status quo – that’s just my thought.
Mahalo for your thoughts.
Aloha Luana. “The more I know about all four, the clearer the two paths become for me. It’s either true redress which is de-occupation or negotiating the degree to which we maintain the status quo.”
“As a tactical matter, Dr. Crabbe’s, Dr. Sai’s & Dr. Chang’s letters are great. And to question constitutionality within US domestic law is great, too. But I don’t imagine any US or state body conceding and willingly granting us any meaningful redress, do you?”
Actually, yes I do believe the US Congress and the American people will one day concede, or as you say, “grant us meaningful redress,” just as other nations in history have done it when it seemed totally impossible. And they did it without so called international law. I do agree that the status quo is difficult to break but the process Im talking about gets us to independence where we left off. I believe it is possible to restore a lawful relationship with the US that can be beneficial to us, and if thats what folks means by “status quo” then Iʻm 100% guilty of promoting the status quo. I should just mention that when I speak of a lawful relationship being restored with the US Iʻm talking about a new treaty which cannot happen unless we are fully restored and unless we are treated as equals. The US Constitution spells out the ONLY kind of relationship the US can have with a foreign country. Pushing for de occupation in a legal vacuum only further guarantees the status quo will prevail imo. We are not recognized as a nation as of this time and the process for de occupation will take at least 20 if not 40 years to get back our independence. Part of the narrative I hear from the de occupation side is we want America and Americans to go away, leave Hawaii and never return. My feeling is this kind of rhetoric will discredit de occupation and those who advocate its importance. There is no war crimes occurring in Hawaii but if we want to believe there is a war going on we should expect to be dismissed. The ICC has set the bar high for war crimes for a good reason.
Mahalo for your thoughts.
I am with you if you are for less rhetoric and more facts. The world does not need more fast and loose talk.
I am not concerned with tough conversations or topics provided there is factual basis. Education of our history and experience will reveal some ugly facts that are quite uncomfortable. Some may have a harsher way of communicating – but I’m okay with ugly truths. If it challenges someone to find out for themselves the facts, all the better.
BTW, I’ve been looking at various countries’ histories and have yet to come across a good example of an occupied people receiving meaningful redress from an occupier through domestic channels only. Can you give me an example I can research?
From Wikipedia:
A number of modes of acquisition of sovereignty are presently or have historically been recognised by international law as lawful methods by which a state may acquire sovereignty over territory. The classification of these modes originally derived from Roman property law and from the 15th and 16th century with the development of international law. The modes are:[27]
Cession is the transfer of territory from one state to another usually by means of treaty;
Occupation is the acquisition of territory that belongs to no state, or terra nullius;
Prescription is the effective control of territory of another acquiescing state;
Operations of nature is the acquisition of territory through natural processes like river accretion or volcanism;
Adjudication and
Conquest
Wikipedia:
A number of modes of acquisition of sovereignty are presently or have historically been recognised by international law as lawful methods by which a state may acquire sovereignty over territory. The classification of these modes originally derived from Roman property law and from the 15th and 16th century with the development of international law. The modes are:[27]
Cession is the transfer of territory from one state to another usually by means of treaty;
Occupation is the acquisition of territory that belongs to no state, or terra nullius;
Prescription is the effective control of territory of another acquiescing state;
Operations of nature is the acquisition of territory through natural processes like river accretion or volcanism;
Adjudication and
Conquest
Mahalo Luana…. “don’t know any action is more important than education today.”
There are many who say that “any action is better than no action.” My reaction is always to say that OHA has proven this does not work! I once challenged OHA Trusteeʻs to seek justice based on the US Constitution and their reply was to say that such a challenge would “take too long,” meaning that they had a better path to pursue in fed rec and self determination then the constitutional approach I was trying to describe. Besides OHA had to defend the entitlements against first amendment lawsuits, which were and are vulnerable for the exact reason Iʻm stating but that OHA failed to consider. Was DHHL ever considered against the US constitution by OHA?, and if not why not? There was a time when most Hawaiians knew instinctively that DHHL was divisive but we would do better to know why this whole construct is totally unconstitutional, totally manufactured and problematic for Kanaka Maoli as we should expect. OHA does not represent what fed rec or constitutional redress could have looked like is my point. They perverted redress by thinking too narrowly about the constitution. This omission opened the door for mavericks and for the formulation of a counterpart, or counter process, which is now become de occupation in a legal vacuum etc.
Aloha, Noa. First, sorry for jumping into the middle of a conversation between you and another poster. I speak for no one other than myself and meant no offense if taken.
There have been several cases filed over the years challenging various aspects of the Hawaiian Homelands Act but none have prevailed. I’m uncertain the particular challenge you’d like to make though I agree this Act is just one of the lauded entitlements I think problematic.
If we begin to examine just one of the entitlements – say Homes Act – it inevitably leads back to the flawed patchwork of redress policies established to address the root issue: the illegal overthrow and subsequent US actions to maintain illegal occupation.
I think many do find the notion of de-occupation to be too radical and impractical, but the occupation seems to be the unavoidable issue in every case and most particularly when we speak of Hawaiian land.
I am only advocating and supporting your efforts to ask questions and fully examine DHHL or any other policy you choose. In asking questions, we put aside any assumed ‘certainty’ about de-occupation or any other path.
Mahalo again for your thoughts,
Luana
Kekoa, when you say “we are already recognized” who are YOU referring to?
Amen to that Tim.
Aloha Noa, I believe the Queen’s petition did appeal to the President and congress but not directly like you suggest. It was filed through the U.S. State Dept. in accordance with foreign relations. History did teach me something about dealing with the U.S. and what I learned was that if it’s not in their best interest they won’t do it on their own. Neither will OHA, it is very obvious OHA wants to be under U.S. rule as a FED REC tribe to protect entitlements. OHA accepts the annexation and state hood as legal and will never question it, why should they, it gives them want they want. If you hear OHA saying this is just the first step and we can strive for independence later, it’s a LIE. The rules under the DOI FED REC does not allow for independence.
So, are you promoting a legal constitutional challenge of the U.S. hold on Hawaii? In what venue? Are you suggesting just sending a letter to the President and Congress?
“So, are you promoting a legal constitutional challenge of the U.S. hold on Hawaii? In what venue? Are you suggesting just sending a letter to the President and Congress?”
Mahalo Kekoa. Or is it Luana?
Anyway, I totally understand your concern about venue and I donʻt want to make light of International but as long as we think of the UN as the ONLY “go to venue” for redress I think this narrows our chances for redress not the other way around. Actually I have found that too many people, especially Kanaka, “want to believe” the US is a dead end legally and philosophically, as if there are absolutely NO GOOD PEOPLE in America and as if America was made to be this way. We are not just talking about restoring sovereignty we seem instead to be trying to debunk all of Americanism, with its rule of law, its capitalism, private property, its Christianity etc. etc. We are in a cultural war in addition to trying to kick the US out of Hawaii.
Try to think back to a time before there was International law where the venue for nations to resolve their disputes was not held as paramount so much as just doing the right thing because “God will not be Mocked.” I plan to use the message about American liberty, good faith, and karma as a mirror to reflect back to Americans what they stand for and why they must change the way their government holds power not just here in the islands but in the US as well, where power and control has expanded far beyond what the Constitution gives them or enumerates. Once while testifying in the legislature one old grey haired Hawaiian man came up to me and said …”eh brah, you sound like Thomas Jefferson.” I reminded him that Thomas Jefferson said “a bill of rights can be used against any government on earth.” You might call me crazy but I agree and do see a day when a bill of rights has more credibility then the UN has given how it has almost no power to stop real genocide where ever it rears its ugly head, let alone the the kind we are disputing.
Mahalo Chang Kane
Momi Greene
Aloha Noa, with all due respect it sounds like a philisophical process. Please cite for me several cases where this approach actually worked. Who were the parties, what lands were returned to them by the U.S. and were there any reperations for injuries. I agree America has some good people but it’s not the people that run american foreign policy. The special interest run the political machinery and that’s just how it is. Look at how long (apprx. forty years) the U.S. played the game with Isreal to broker state recognition for the Palestinians. It was just a scam, never was going to happen. That’s why Palestine took control and went the International route through the U.N.General Assembly and got it for themselves without the U.S. or the other 8 major countries who actually voted against Palestine. The U.S. and some other contries tried to cut a deal with Palestine before the vote saying they would support the vote only if they had an agreement that Palestine would not seek involvement with International venues for war crimes. Palestine turned them down since they new they were going to get the votes they needed anyway. See how dirty these guys play the game. No thanks, philosophy just don’t cut it in todays world. Unlike Palestine who needed to get recognized, we are already recognized so that’s half the battle. We have access to all the International venues and yes they even accepted the war crime complaints from Hawaii. Thomas Jefferson once said to the effect … if private corporations were allowed to control the inflation and deflation of America’s currency, we would have lost the country. He was right. So forgive me if I don’t agree with your philosophy.
Also Kekoa, the Queen used some philosophy too when she referred to the “Law of Nations” in her petition to Congress. Are we petitioning Congress? Seems that is the least we should have done but no. We hold out for de occupation even if there is little or no chance for full recognition at the UN either. Why must it be either or? These should not be mutually exclusive processes.
//with all due respect it sounds like a philisophical process. Please cite for me several cases where this approach actually worked. Who were the parties, what lands were returned to them by the U.S.//
With all due respect, there is not one example of when the UN Security Council (where the issue of “deoccupation” would have to go) put through a resolution for the US to deoccupy any land in its territory.
//That’s why Palestine took control and went the international route through the U.N. General Assembly and got it for themselves without the U.S. or the other 8 major countries who actually voted against Palestine.//
Exactly! After trying to go through the UN Security Council and having the US veto a resolution for Israeli withdrawal, the Palestinians went to the UN General Assembly, where yes, a vote from Vanuatu is as valuable as a vote from the US. This is why those who support Hawaiian independence advocate for decolonization. It’s a tried and true process, with a dedicated committee in the UN, that has liberated over 80 territories and starts in the UN General Assembly.
Noa, the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights concluded [we] the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a independant nation state under prolonged occupation by the United States. This conclusion and our occupation will be noted in it’s 2013 War Report publication coming out in Dec. 2014. Occupation has laws and procedures that need to followed and it is the resonsibility of the executive branch and it’s military, not congress. If you start to deviate from procedure you end up looking like you don’t know what you are doing. This is a subject dealing with foreign relations not internal relations such as congress. You still have not cited any cases where your philisophical process was successfull. Let me know about that first before any further comments.
“This conclusion and our occupation will be noted in it’s 2013 War Report publication coming out in Dec. 2014.”
Which changes nothing Kekoa unless you consider the war report to be the law of the land? There are some who hope the opinion immediately incriminates those who they want to arrest for insurrection and other such crimes against the Kingdom.
For me its not possible to “deviate from the procedure” where I presume you mean “international law” because rather than try to fit everything into a single process, you are right, I try to craft redress internally where I avoid international law altogether. I use older notions of state rights and the idea of nullification where states can nullify federal fiats and such laws that are repugnant to the constitution, or that usurp power vested in the people, the independent states and so on. This, btw, was the real reason the civil war was fought and why the anti-expansionist and and hard core nativists rejected US annexation of Hawaii. Besides if youʻre saying de occupation is a perfect science and that there is nothing whatsoever problematic about seeking the kind of de occupation you and others describe I must be completely out of touch with reality.
Internal redress reconciles older notions of states rights and revives the philosophical debate about the extent of Congressional powers over foreign territories as much as over American citizens.
“Our Rights pre-date & pre-exist The Constitution. Thus, nullification of usurped powers is a natural right – it is the remedy against insupportable oppression by the federal government……. or “any other government on earth” according to Jefferson.
I made an entry into this blog this morning (8/15/2014) and called Dr. Chang a “wishy/washy idiot” My deepest apologies to Dr. Chang for this mistake. I was speakiing of Leon Siu. I am extremely embarrassed of this mistake (which could have been avoided by proof reading my entry) and much apologetic for this “idiotic mistake” Aloha Kakou!
Aloha Jon, I must admit that you threw me for a loop with that comment which caused me to watch that video. I appreciate that you manned up and apalogized for your mistake. Hey, I’ve been there and done that, who hasn’t. It’s what you did about it that counts. No worrys, it’s all good.
Hey Jon, check it out we posted on the wrong thread (lol). Like I said it happens to everyone now and then. Sorry folks.
Aloha M.A., The U.N. Security Council is not where we are going for deoccupation that’s a given, that’s why it is not submitted to them for that purpose.
When Palestine took it to the U.N. general assembly they were recognized as a non-state observer status.
When Hawaii filed it’s protest and demand with the U.N general assembly it was filed and accepted as a recognized state that is not a member to the U.N. general assembly. HUGE DIFFERENCE!
If you are a recognized state then you cannot not be colonized. If you have another state violating and usurping your state sovereignty and exercising it’s own control and sovereignty in your territory that is defined as occupation under international law. That is legally and procedurally a total diffenent process than decolonization.
That would be like telling Japan, Iraq, and Afghanistan or whoever-stan that when they were occupied by the U.S. that they needed decolonization instead of deoccupation. Yeah Right, give me a break, they would look at you and laugh because they know you don’t understand the legal process.
Noa, we not talking about how you personally deal with issues. We are talking how nation states deal with issues of occupation.
So, again and again and again I ask for verification of your philisophical process. Which country successfully ended their occupation with your process?
Hey Noa and M.A., the ICC began issuing warrants for war crimes in Hawaii. Still think philosophy and decolinization is the appropriate processes over deoccupation? I don’t think so. Pau
Mahalo Kekoa and Luana.
The process I invasion for new treaty with the US is not a personal one nor is it purely philosophical as you insinuate but part of a history that is unique to the American experience and that attempts to restore the American REpublic more or less to where it was under the articles of Confederation, before the impact of enlightenment philosophers, and before the advent of the Nation States and the law of de occupation, which predates the overthrow. Americans want to go back to a time when their government was not the worlds police and they want to be able to live and get along peacefully with other nations. American politicians are recognizing the need to give power back to the states and to reign in the federal government, which includes every manufactured state it took in violation of its own laws. The language that governed the treaties we had with the US coupled with the way the US had articulated its foreign policy provides us with key components of a new lawful relationship, like non intervention, respect for territorial boundaries, land tiles, local customs etc. The idea is to craft a relationship with the US that does not violate the treaties or the nations integrity. I want to be a reformer first which means I am attempting to trace back methods of justice or de occupation to a time long before the league of nations, the Hague, the ICC or even America existed. What if there are unforeseen anomalies? In 10 years there will be no UN, International conventions, or Int. Criminal Courts through which elites can police the smaller nations and exploit their resources.
Few nations today are original families and fewer nations got their territory through law suits against their captors. The nations that make up the League of Nations and the member nations we seem eager to rejoin have too much blood on their hands.
Moses faced down one of the most intolerant and cultic regimes ever to exist but his legal leverage and strategy did not ask for examples of Egypt letting its slaves go, his was not grounded in human systems. Nehemiah and Ezra moreover where statesmen reformers who used influence to gain favor from Kings and nations they where destroyed by, occupied by etc. Then there were the Maccabees, who I use to help me understand our struggle. I donʻt study International law but I intend to study all the aspects of it asap. Including the problems associated with de Occupation and decolonization, which are two parts of the same coin.
Thanks again for your thoughts, Noa.
I hope you haven’t taken any of my responses to disparage any of your ideas. I don’t insinuate anything. I say exactly what I think.
Thanks for providing details of the process examples you’d touched upon earlier. This is clarifying for me – I was unaware you were referencing ancient through 18th century history and predicting future similar post nation-state concepts provide a new path forward.
I do understand globalization continues to blur nation-state lines in some respects, but don’t know I understand or share all your views on the other points. Still, I support your right to have your views and definitely your right to ask questions and seek answers.
Again, I’ve only ever advocated education. Goodness, I hope you and I can agree education isn’t a “process which violates treaties or the integrity of any nation.” I think it’s great you and we all further study international law, de-occupation, and decolonization.
Luana, I appreciate your candor and that you seem open to new ideas and the right for others to express them, ask questions etc. I have several friends who are heavily invested in the sovereignty debates, taking on majors in college that focus on International law and related issues. They are Kanaka who tend to disagree with Keanu and are vilified by the staunch de occupation people for it. There is quite a bit of discussion on other pages where admin are not sheltering the debates. These pages are important because they filter through the hype and sensationalism that often accompany the news or events that create news.
My focus is on the original construct where states where considered independent countries and where the federal government had limited power and when the articles of confederation governed the US. The declaration of independence was declared by independent states, not a nation state. With nation states we get a new paradigm in terms of how states related to each other. I think the jury is still out on whether this should be allowed to continue. Do we really want to join the Global cabal?
Aloha Noa. I am all for everyone having their own perspective and the right to voice it.
I like to think our perspectives are shaped by our life experiences and knowledge we are exposed to.
I like to hang my hat on the knowledge of my kanaka ancestors, our moolelo. Why? Because they were a part of a group of ancient civilizations. They had thousands of years of experience in coexistence and sustainability. These two concepts seem to be missing from a majority of the modern world. I would caution looking to less experienced/successful social structures for advice. Not that they can’t, but I believe our kupuna already identified the useful aspects of western concepts, most of which you can find in the Hawaiian constitution of 1864.
As far as your friends that disagree with Keanu, do they disagree with his analysis of our history? Of our legal and political situation? If so, can they provide another analysis that is irrefutable?
From my perspective deoccupation brings us back in time as a nation, then we will get to decide what we want to sign on to. In that moment your iideas may be relevant.
There are two facts that everyone is going to have to deal with in Hawaii. Land ownership, preserving the rights of native tenants and kanaka having rights not afforded to everyone else, cultural preservation.
My perspective.
Mahalo, Noa.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard Dr. Sai or others suggest they are the true and first voices for all Kanaka. If they did, I think they’d be standing in a pretty lonely corner. In fact, he and others repeatedly encourage us all to ask questions, gather facts and determine for ourselves. And I’ve seen a lot of discussion and debate of the information shared on this blog. I think that’s the point – and, of course, this blog’s name pretty much clues you in to the fact that you’re gonna hear many who support de-occupation.
There is a lot to unpack in all your comments – so forgive me if I don’t quite follow all the directions of your thoughts. But you sound pretty determined of your path and I appreciate viewing your and everyone else’s discussion and debate.
Education of our history and experience within the current context is my personal focus – which is plenty complex for me. And this blog and other sources are doing a great service by providing access to primary source documentation to help me learn more.
Hey, can you share the exact points of disagreement your friends have with Dr. Sai’s arguments? I’d like to sort out for myself.
I tend to treat the dejure de facto issue philosophically too. I think a father has natural rights over his daughter so long as he does not molest her. The law of karma should trump that natural right. American sovereignty is not inherent it is subject to the law of karma as is every nation on earth.
Wikipedia:
A number of modes of acquisition of sovereignty are presently or have historically been recognised by international law as lawful methods by which a state may acquire sovereignty over territory. The classification of these modes originally derived from Roman property law and from the 15th and 16th century with the development of international law. The modes are:[27]
Cession is the transfer of territory from one state to another usually by means of treaty;
Occupation is the acquisition of territory that belongs to no state, or terra nullius;
Prescription is the effective control of territory of another acquiescing state;
Operations of nature is the acquisition of territory through natural processes like river accretion or volcanism;
Adjudication and
Conquest
My braddah Wikipedia is not a source.
“I would caution looking to less experienced/successful social structures for advice. Not that they can’t, but I believe our kupuna already identified the useful aspects of western concepts, most of which you can find in the Hawaiian constitution of 1864.”
Luana, Iʻm sure you must know that like American law Hawaiian Kingdom law was for the most part based on common law and Christianity. The ideas imbedded into Hawaiian law deal with Land and power in western terms and these are better understood when we embrace them as our own imo. To me its difficult to say I am sworn to Hawaiian Kingdom law but reject western theories of law totally and completely. Moreover how does a nation lay claim to or dispute sovereignty rights, allodial tittles, Royal patents etc., without fully understanding the meaning of terms like allodial and how it was meant to be applied say against a quite title claim. So the idea that sovereignty will automatically return these allodial lands to the rightful hairs is to me problematic. Especially when we use so called war crimes and genocide as a legal leverage to recover these lands against the US. Also, where is the Kingdom exactly? Is it Bumpyʻs Nation State or is it Henry Noaʻs Reinstated Kingdom etc? Last I checked there are 7 Hawaiian Nations and dozens of individual claimants.
The “useful aspects of western concepts” as you put is are being ignored almost completely in the sovereignty debate as if somehow exploiting constitutional law traditions should be obsolete if not outright evil. Restoration is largely a political process that will take several decades to accomplish, not a purely legal one where some high court in the Hague suddenly pronounces the Kingdom Restored and all the lands and assets immediately returned.
I plan to get to some of your other comments I hope the thread is still up.
It was my post you were referring to, Noa. We might just have to agree to disagree. I am OK with us having different perspectives.
I think people tend to over simplify our modern history, 1800-1893. What is happening during this time is truly chaotic, however our kupuna were able to make it through those rough seas. Quite an amazing accomplishment.
Our kupuna lived in a more communal social structure. Where peddling was frowned upon. I cant recall a moolelo where individuals faced punishment for peddling, or furthering their own position within society. To me, this speaks to the role of capitalism in the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Society operated to serve the alii, who served the people by managing resources to ensure everyone was fed and were protected. This is the Hawaiian Kingdom I see reemerging.
Regarding the land, reverting back to how Kanaka viewed land use. The land was used to serve the people and it was the peoples responsibility to take care of the land for future generations.
As far as rightful owners, I think the insurgents did a good job making that very hard to do. Regardless it was never as we see land ownership in America.
Hopefully, you start to understand how I am coming to my perspective. Take the teachings of my kupuna and apply it to today’s world. We have a 120 years of our lands being under American control. How are the Hawaiians?( discriminated against in their own home land) How is the land?(unsustainably developed-Oahu, polluted with chemicals)How is our food?(poison called food).
Looking to America would be a waste of time when I am looking for Hawaiian solutions. I have faith in my Hawaiian people who have the courage to face the truth and educate thselves.
Noa, I appreciate your thoughts but this response don’t seem to speak to any of my own comments. Maybe you are confusing me with another poster(?) I don’t need to be in the middle of any discussion with anyone else.
Again, you seem to be determined of your path so you should do what you know is right for you. No need to continue a thread with me – you’ve already moved onto another thread anyway. Aloha, Noa.
Noa,
The territory of the nation state of Hawaii is described by meets and bounds using degrees in longitude and latitude. You can find this using the tab of the home page to hawaiiankingdom.org.
When our kupuna were drafting the laws for our kingdom they looked to the common law of europe since it came from a monarchial form of governance instead of America that was anti monarchy. Our kupuna were inovative to borrow from the west only what would suit their purpose.
There will be no problem returning the lands by using law as long as the right law is applied. In american courts or european courts a legal land dispute is resolved by using law not politics or philosophy and that is their concept, the one you so love to mention in your posts. Politics do not dictate the law but rather the law dictates what the politics will be.
The seven nations you referred to are not recognized nations they are sovereignty groups. Anyone can claim anything but let’s see if they can provide a proof of claim subject to the law’s that are used to validate that claim.
Just like those claiming to be heirs of the lands. Yes you could be an heir but that is just a claim. A court would have to adjudicate and validate that claim, especially if there are multipule claimants. No different than any other country.
Oh yeah, can you please direct me to the law of karma. Has legislation been enacted and codified to be utilized in court cases? Can you site some case law on karma? Is it mentioned in the U.S. constitution?