First of all, the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom was illegal as well as the annexation of Hawaii by the US.  Consequently, if the annexation of Hawaii was illegal, the current political control of Hawaii by the US is best described as an illegal occupation based on international law.

Kuleana,

I am not going to take sides in this thread as I honestly cannot tell what the truth actually is. I have read numerous books and opinions on this subject over the years and from my point of view both sides has holes in their arguments. Due to this I do not want to discuss this though I will follow this thread if it continues.

However, I do have a statement and a question for you. After reading everything you wrote here I feel like you look at me as an "unwelcomed migrant". Is this how you feel about haole's like me? I have experienced plenty of racist comments and shout downs since I moved here 10 years ago. Every incident involves someone who feels the way you do and tells me to go back to the mainland. Actually yells at me to go back to the mainland. I was threatened once as well. 

I have always felt that we are all Americans here and are on the same side even though our opinions differ. Yet, after reading some of your words I get the feeling that you don't consider yourself an American. And that you would truly wish that we would just give back all of our land and homes to the monarchy move away. 

I agree with Ren for probably a different reason. Mods, please close this thread.

So is that response to Inspector full of "opinions" or only "facts". Since you claim that some people disagree with you on various points, including you labeling them various derogatory terms, I'd like to hear your explanation for what you have written, given your previous statements regarding "opinions" and "facts".

While your at it, please give us the "legal" history of all the interactions of the people who first originally immigrated to the islands and their interactions with succeeding waves of immigrants, as well as the legal interactions of the various factions of people living on the various islands, who to those of us uninformed on the subtleties of these peoples' legal system, seem to have been something akin to violent conquest. Then please link that legal history to the legal history you claim is now relevant to the current state of things. Thanks.

I did not know this forum made you the official fact-checker.

I hope you scrutinize every post hereon this forum and demand each poster to clearly state and then justify their facts and/or opinions.

It is clear by your post that you merely want to argue for the sake of argument and further bait me into a running discussion with you that will see no end.

I made my position clear based on the available facts that anyone can access for themselves in regards to the legal status of Hawaii and all of the events that led to this effect.

Everyone is entitled to their own interpretation and I look forward to conversing with those in this thread who wish to have an open and sincere discourse.

Have a Happy Easter!

If the annexation was illegal, then you have no case for violation of your Constitutional rights, because the state would not be a state.  If the annexation was legal, then you can address those violations -- except the annexation would have to be legal to do that.

Catch 22.

 

Well if you actually read the history and laws for legal annexation of a nation into statehood, the annexation of Hawai'i technically is illegal, as was the annexation of Texas, which served as the template for the legality of the annexation of Hawai'i.

"...the government of the United States understood that the only proper and lawful way for one nation to deal with another is by treaty. That principle is still part of International Law today. And the only way for the legislature of the United States to approve a treaty is by a two thirds vote of the Senate, per the Constitution for the United States of America.
The treaty was presented to the Senate in 1844 and was DEFEATED by a vote of 35 to 16. The following year, in 1845, the House of Representatives entered into the record a "Resolution of Annexation." The House of Representatives has no authority to initiate a matter of foreign affairs. After passing the resolution, the United States declared that Texas was a "State of the Union." This was an unlawful, fraudulent process which has been questioned since it was done, but the United States has failed at every turn to answer the questions regarding the unlawful process it used to acquire Texas. Secretary Upshur's own letter is evidence that a "Resolution" is NOT the proper and lawful way to annex a Nation as a State..."

I care about what is here and now.   Culture is important, you don't want to lose
your roots, but  you need to adapt or you will die.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

"The strength of the Gish Gallop is in its ability to create the appearance of authority and control. The Galloper frames the debate and forces opponents to respond on their terms. The Galloper wins by making the point that their opponents have failed to disprove their arguments sufficiently or completely enough for their satisfaction. Their goal is not to win on the facts, but to minimize the time and effort they need to expend to achieve maximum apparent credibility, while ensuring that opponents expend maximum time and effort in rebuttal for inconsequential gains. They want to drop a bomb into your lap and run away, telling you it can only be disarmed when they say it is, and that it isn't their job to tell you when it's disarmed."

It is clear by your post that you merely want to argue for the sake of argument and further bait me into a running discussion with you that will see no end.

I made my position clear based on the available facts that anyone can access for themselves in regards to the legal status of Hawaii and all of the events that led to this effect.

Everyone is entitled to their own interpretation and I look forward to conversing with those in this thread who wish to have an open and sincere discourse.

Be careful Q, the thought police is up and about...

They may just respond to your post saying that it is just your opinion and demand you partake in a mindless journey to justify your facts.

Well if you actually read the history and laws for legal annexation of a nation into statehood, the annexation of Hawai'i technically is illegal, as was the annexation of Texas, which served as the template for the legality of the annexation of Hawai'i.

"...the government of the United States understood that the only proper and lawful way for one nation to deal with another is by treaty. That principle is still part of International Law today. And the only way for the legislature of the United States to approve a treaty is by a two thirds vote of the Senate, per the Constitution for the United States of America.
The treaty was presented to the Senate in 1844 and was DEFEATED by a vote of 35 to 16. The following year, in 1845, the House of Representatives entered into the record a "Resolution of Annexation." The House of Representatives has no authority to initiate a matter of foreign affairs. After passing the resolution, the United States declared that Texas was a "State of the Union." This was an unlawful, fraudulent process which has been questioned since it was done, but the United States has failed at every turn to answer the questions regarding the unlawful process it used to acquire Texas. Secretary Upshur's own letter is evidence that a "Resolution" is NOT the proper and lawful way to annex a Nation as a State..."

There should be a statute of limitations regarding any annexation, colonization, etc.  If the aggrieved party doesn't petition for a hearing within a certain time limit, they resign themselves to accepting the outcome of the situation.

While I agree with you that some illegal acts should have a statue of limitation, other illegal acts such as murder, rape, extortion, and acquiring territory without due process should not.  There are many legitimate reasons in the examples I listed where the victims of those crimes may not have come forward to press their case.  For example, in cases of rape or extortion, the victim might have been threatened with death and could only come forward when the victim felt confident enough after a duration of time.


Hawaii became a state over 58 years ago.  A generation is generally defined as about 30 years.  After nearly 2 generations living as US citizens, I believe this entire conversation is unproductive, and in many respects counterproductive.

With all due respect, how is the conversation of the illegal annexation and occupation of Hawaii by the US unproductive and/or counterproductive.


It's necessary to study history, but one must recognize it's impossible to change history.

I totally disagree.

It is possible for students of history to change things today to correct the wrongs of the past.  Just look at the establishment of the US.  The founding fathers of the US were all great historic scholars and had the foresight to create a nation state that has become a model for all other nations since then.  The abolishment of the rule of the divine right of Kings, feudalism, the rights of man, the Right to Own and Bear Arms, and etc.  All of these great acts were done to the dismay of the empires of the ancient and current World they lived. 

It's necessary to study history, but one must recognize it's impossible to change history.

I totally disagree.

But you can't undo the wrong done to people who no longer walk the Earth.  It's impossible.