Talk:Legal status of Hawaii/Archive 10

''note: please respond after this comment, rather than inserting your replies into the middle. I'll say it again at the end.''

Laualoha:Thanks -- I really appreciate input from someone in the "center". I have to strongly disagree about "any suggestion" of the illegality of the current political status of Hawai'i being "undue weight", though. The small relative size of the claim and claimant has nothing to do with legality. And the slowness of the legal process and legal movement doesn't discredit the legal claims; I think it just shows that the Kanaka Maoli movement is patient, dedicated to peace, and struggling under colonization.

It is true that on an international scale, it is a relatively small issue, and often falls very low on the priority list when dealt with by international bodies (sometimes this is due to the actions of Hawaiians themselves: diplomats from Hawai'i have often told me that one of the hardest things about going to the U.N. is that when they get there, they find themselves wanting to give up their time to countries with starving children and daily massacres). However, even though these things may result in Hawai'i's illegal occupation being only a "speck" on the "radar screen" of the world, this does not affect the question of legality at all.

Legality is not a function of consensus, majority vs. minority viewpoints, or justification. If I went around at a movie theatre and stole 20 people's sodas, that would be illegal. It would still be illegal even if no one saw me do it. It would still be illegal even if I never got busted for it, and even if I said I had a good reason for it, and even if nobody cared, even if half the people later said I could have them as far as they were concerned, even if most of the others had forgotten the incident completely, even if 100 years passed.

The page is about law, right? Not political standing, not about ethnic relations, not about the sovereignty movement per se, and definitely not about Mahealani Ah Sing's divorce. It's supposed to be about law. And as far as law goes, we have an act of war that was never properly ratified by the US itself, a wartime takeover that is being challenged by not only Hawai'i but by legal experts in many other countries affected by that same land grab (Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philipines...), a series of shoddy US internal "resolutions", etc.,justifying their actions and subsequently given true undue weight, a highly questionable and biased plebicite that only gave a yes/no choices between two illegal options (to become a state or to remain a territory of the U.S.), and a whole ocean full of historical and ongoing examples of terror-based, forced colonization, replete with examples that fully meet the U.N. definition of genocide.

On the other hand, we have a (very)slow but certain growth of consciousness, international awareness, and legal recognition. The issues of illegality are now discussed in standard public high school curriculum. Hawai'i has been recognized by the indigenous peoples of the world, over and over again. Dis it as you may, U.S. Public Law 105-150 was signed by a U.S. president and all of Hawai'i's congresspersons. It clearly acknowledges many of the U.S.' misdeeds and illegalities. Large churches such as the United Church of Christ have acknowledged the U.S. occupation as illegal. I could go on & on with examples, and maybe if I could get past having to justify taking out material about activists' divorce settlements, I could get to some of them!

Actually, this is a good part of the reason the issue doesn't make it to the international stage. We are so colonized that we can't physically get to articulating the problem, because we're so busy scrambling around dealing with tangential drama thrown at us by the colonial forces (tax drama, real estate issues, lawsuits, etc. etc.). Many Hawaiians can't even afford to live in Hawai'i (know what I mean, Jere?) much less take the time and risk involved in speaking to the issues affecting them. And lemme tell you (you can call this part POV if you like; it's in the appropriate place, ok?): from a colonized, occupied person's viewpoint, keeping the facts straight about how you were robbed and your 'aina raped over and over again is a real pain, especially when it's to justify legitimate corrections of irrelevant stuff!!! I'm not trying to push an agenda, I'm only trying to keep the facts straight in a way that is fair to everyone. But damn, some people make it hard.

That being said, B/T/W, nice to see you too, Jere. --Laualoha 22:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC) p.s. as a general thing, please don't edit "into" what I've written here (i.e. stick in point-by-point responses into the middle of the text). It gets real confusing when multiple layers develop. Just add what you've gotta say to the end, if you want, and I'll do the same.--Laualoha 22:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Arjuna:Aloha, Laualoha. I hope you understand that I was offering an assessment, not an opinion. No offense was intended -- on the contrary your opinion and contributions are valuable and much appreciated. Arjuna 05:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. I agree with you on not sticking comments in the middle, which gets terribly confusing to read. Arjuna 05:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Laualoha:Don't worry, I'm not offended. Even Jere doesn't offend me (most of the time), even though he makes me mad sometimes. I want people to say what they really think. --Laualoha 06:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Jere:Aloha Laualoha! Of course I disagree rather vehemently on some of the basic premises you put forth - for example, the entire idea of "legality" requires more than upset activists, or cunning interpretations of symbolic apology resolutions -> in its most basic form, whether or not something is illegal or legal is dependent upon jurisdiction, codified law, and adjudication.  What this means, is that until you can find a court, and a body of codified law, and a judgment that is applicable to Hawaii in 1893, you simply cannot claim, except in the rhetorical sense, that the Hawaiian Revolution was "illegal".  You are correct in saying that legality is not a matter of consensus, majority vs. minority or justification (except, of course, when the body of law you're working under demands 12 people on a jury for conviction (criminal law), or a majority of 12 people on a jury for conviction (civil torts), or jury nullification) - but you do not sufficiently define what legality really is.


 * If you went around in a movie theater, and stole 20 people's sodas, it would only be illegal if there was a court with jurisdiction over the theater, a body of codified law that prohibited theft, and a judgment of the court. You may feel, as a matter of morality, that your theft was wrong, but you cannot assert with a straight face that it is inherently or absolutely illegal no matter what the circumstances without some sort of adjudication or established code of law.  When someone kills someone else, but is found "not guilty" of murder, have they done anything illegal?  If you are accused of cheating on your taxes, but are found "not guilty" of tax evasion, have you done anything illegal?  Legality is not simply one person's on one group's reading of the code or theory - it is a process.  Using the term "legality" in the sense that you do has no real utility - I could just as easily claim that the unification of the Hawaiian Islands by Kamehameha was illegal by the moral and natural law of international society, or I could claim that the treatment of Asian laborers in both the Hawaiian Kingdom, and the Hawaiian Territory were illegal by the moral and natural law of international society.  But that's simply empty rhetoric.


 * Similarly, the "colonization" rhetoric is an appeal to emotion and ad hominem attack on western society that is certainly given way too much weight - remember, kanaka maoli were the ultimate colonists, coming to the Hawaiian islands in wave after wave of immigration, each one usurping the people that had come there before. Making some sort of distinction "us vs. them", "colonized vs. colonist" is divisive, unfair, and disingenuous.  The problems of Hawaii are not limited to people with partial genetic ancestry to pre-1778 immigrants, nor is western civilization to blame for the ills of society.  The populist rhetoric of "colonized vs. colonist" is simply a way to divide people so that they can be more easily controlled by those who seek power.


 * If you want to talk about how you were robbed, let's talk about the ali'i and kahuna who lorded it over the kama'aina and kauwa. If you want to talk about the land being raped, let's talk about the Hawaiian Kingdom which denuded the sandalwood forests to trade for western trinkets, and drove their people to slavery and starvation.  If you want to talk about taking responsibility, let's have every part-kanaka maoli take responsibility for their non-kanaka maoli parts too - if you're going to blame ancestors, excepting the very few 100% kanaka maoli left, don't all the part-native Hawaiians have some responsibility to share for their relatives who weren't pre-1778 immigrants?  Even the 100%ers, don't they have some responsibility for the strict class-based system of pre-contact Hawaii that oppressed and enslaved women and the lower-classes?


 * So is it undue weight to present the far-fetched legal theories of sovereignty activists? I certainly would imagine so, especially if we do not give the context of their fringe nature.  I think the particularly insidious issue, though, is the struggle you speak of Laualoha, to obtain "(very)slow but certain growth of consciousness, international awareness, and legal recognition" - this means that any advertisement or lobbying on the behalf of this extreme-minority viewpoint is inherently POV pushing.  I'm not sure what the best way to deal with that is, except by making perfectly clear that although arguments are made by sovereignty activists, and that they have been at times successful in (mis)leading some people into believing their version of history, that they do not represent any sort of law other than rhetoric. (If you'd like to debate that, please, simply quote me a statute of law in effect in 1893, agreed to and ratified by all the parties involved in the Hawaiian Revolution, and a court which could adjudicate any dispute over the facts and make a conclusion.)


 * The sad part is, I think we both really want the same thing, Laualoha - we want a Hawaii where it is possible for a middle class to flourish, and for people to be educated, healthy, and self-sustaining. Just as you are afraid that "colonization" has set in to prevent you from making a difference, my fear is that "balkanization" is setting in and preventing us from making a difference.  I recently read an interesting article in the la times, and suggest it as useful reading - the idea I take away from it is that if we can maintain a primary common identity community in Hawaii of all people, rather than factionalizing ourselves into separate sub-groups, we can have our cake and eat it too.  It is when we start looking at our cousins as different than us because they don't have the same partial genetic ancestry, that we truly open ourselves, as a whole, to exploitation by a corrupt system of political pandering, infighting, and violation.


 * Anyway, apologies for the long rant, but I thought I'd share my mana'o. I understand your passion, Laualoha, but I question some of your basic premises.  In the end, I believe we are more similar than different, and hope that even as we disagree, we can treat this topic as respectfully and honestly as possible.  Mahalo! --JereKrischel 07:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Laualoha:I'll edit this comment eventually, if I get time, to discuss your points. I think there are a lot of things you need to broaden your perspective and information on, quite frankly. For now, let me just address your concept of "Kanaka Maoli":