Talk:Legal status of Hawaii/Archive 6

Laualoha:Can a theft become legal by internal decision or by changing hands?

Itʻs true that sovereignty proponents would certainly not accept any decision as final. If somebody showed up with a bogus deed to your house and kicked you out of it, would you accept a decision as final -- even from a court, and especially from a court where the thief sat as judge and all his business associates, who owed him money, sat as jury? I rather think not. If itʻs injustice and you know it and you can prove it and itʻs something you care about, you just keep appealing, keep lobbying, do whatever you have to do to make it right. Right?


 * Jere:The problem is, people have a different idea of what is "right" in this case. At a certain point, in our system of government, it hits the Supreme Court, and then it is done.  The issue with the point of view of sovereignty activists is that no matter what happens, they don't accept that the matter has been settled until it is settled to their approval. --JereKrischel 23:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Laualoha:People always have a different view of what is right in disputes, Jere. When you say "our" system of government, that only goes for those who identify as Americans.  The supreme court of the U.S. is a part of the occupying government, and have no power to "settle" a dispute to which they are a party.  Laualoha 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Jere:The problem, Laualoha, is that in 1893 there was no power that could settle the dispute between the two parties. We cannot create an international body like the U.N., and then assert that it has ex post facto authority to adjudicate something that happened outside of its temporal jurisdiction.  Can you name any entity that would have had the power to settle this in 1893?  1898?  1900?  --JereKrischel 02:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * For example, after the creation of Israel, a house was taken by a jewish family that had belonged to a palestinian family. Will the palestinians accept this as final?  No matter what peace treaties or negotiations or world court decisions are made?  It's an injustice, we know about it, and we can prove it, so we can't stand for it can we?


 * Except, of course, the jewish family sees it in different terms. They see their biblical homeland as being stolen hundreds if not thousands of years ago, and assert that their injustice against the palestinian is merely correcting a greater injustice.


 * Although you may personally believe that you know what is justice and what is not, and what can be proven and what can't, frankly, in Wikipedia, that doesn't hold water. You and I can both agree that the Hawaiian Sovereignty movement is an extreme minority in the world.


 * Laualoha:uh, no, I donʻt think so. The Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement and its supporters (which include hundreds of indigenous nations, hundreds if not thousands of NGOʻs, the Green Party, all Hawaiʻi congressioners, Bill Clinton, the majority of the U.S. Congress who passed the Apology Resolution, etc. etc. etc.) do not exactly constitute the Wikipedia definition of a Tiny Minority. Wikipedia also has a policy of countering

Systemic Bias, which is certainly a factor here.Laualoha 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Jere:I'm sorry, but you are talking about a tiny minority. Certainly the Apology Resolution had in Section 3 a large disclaimer regarding any legal issues, and neither the Green Party, Hawaii's congressional delegation, Bill Clinton, nor the U.S. Congress has ever asserted that the State of Hawaii should be disbanded and given back to modern day royalists.


 * Regarding systemic bias, I think it is the other way around - I have worked diligently for months now combating the systemic bias placed in Wikipedia regarding the Hawaiian Revolution, and it has been difficult. --JereKrischel 02:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You and I can both agree that for over 100 years, no decision by any deliberative body has come down in favor of the movement. Let's work from there, and try to make it clear in the article that being a minority viewpoint, and being on the losing side of history, does not mean that the viewpoint is inherently invalid, or baseless. I've given it a shot, hopefully we can put something together that does not whitewash the magnitude of the struggle being faced here. --JereKrischel 23:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Laualoha:"The losing side of history?" Jere, it kinda sounds to me like youʻre kinda calling my people losers, and thatʻs almost hovering on the border of an ad hominem. Letʻs not go there, ok?  Itʻs not nice.  We might not have all the weapons the U.S. has, nor the psyche to use them if we did, but that doesnʻt exactly mean weʻve "lost".  Itʻs true that the "winners" of history have usually been the ruthless invaders and weapon-rich military leaders, but you know, I kinda think that might be a bit of a problem in our world, ya know? We "lost" our government because of the Queenʻs decision not to take up arms, in order to "prevent loss of life".  I donʻt think itʻs very nice to imply that sheʻs a loser because of that.


 * Letʻs just deal with the facts, and simple logic. No decision for, no decision against. Period.  U.S. internal decisions donʻt count, because they are a party.


 * Jere:Just because you've been losers so far, does not preclude you from eventually winning, nor does make a judgement as to whether or not your POV has merit.


 * If you want to ignore U.S. internal decisions, just look at all the international decisions - within 48 hours, every nation with diplomatic relations recognized the Provisional Government of Hawaii. Recognition of the Republic of Hawaii was similarly swift.  In 1945 Hawaii was put on the list of non-self-governing territories, and in 1959 it was taken off by the U.N..  Every international decision of each individual nation that ever had diplomatic relations with the Kingdom of Hawaii, and every international body which has considered the matter has been in favor of the legitimacy and legality (although not necessarily the morality) of the Hawaiian Revolution, and subsequent annexation and statehood. --JereKrischel 02:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Laualoha:To say that Hawaiʻi was annexed legally is basically saying that itʻs okay to invade any peaceful country, steal their land, move in your troops and destroy their ʻaina and culture. I mean, I guess you can argue that the Committee of Safety were not all technically Americans, but for all intents & purposes (political, economic, social, cultural, religious, etc.) they were, whereas many other non-native citizens had become naturalized in these underlying areas.


 * Jere:That's not true at all - to say that Hawaii was annexed legally is basically saying that if an internal revolution occurs, and the internationally recognized government which comes out of that revolution negotiates and executes annexation, and the international community accepts it as legitimate, then it is legal. The moral issues regarding whether or not this was a good or a bad thing for specific groups can be endlessly debated, but the legality of the matter is has been settled against sovereignty activists in every attempt to address it before any legal body.


 * Laualoha:uh, no, I hate to admit it, but thereʻs just a helluva lotta work that goes into even getting heard by these international legal bodies, and the few that weʻve gotten an ear from have pretty much told us "sounds good, but I donʻt really have time for this today." Which we understand, given that there are lots of other valid issues out there in the world addition to ours.  So weʻre patient.  That doesnʻt prove weʻve lost. Laualoha 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Jere:Again, until you've won, you're losing. But there's no need to even use that terminology in the article - I accept that the term carries some emotional weight to it; I was just using it for clarity, not diplomacy.  Do you have a list of the attempts and responses we could put into the article?  --JereKrischel 02:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Put another way, to say that the Kingdom of Hawaii was legal is basically saying that it's okay to invade other islands, push their people off of cliffs, and destroy their 'aina and culture. --JereKrischel 23:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Laualoha:Anyway, whether the Committee of Safety (who certainly acted illegally, especially if they were indeed "Hawaiian Citizens") were American or not is beside the central point. One cannot make a theft valid by "laundering" it through another party. If somebody rips off your bike and then donates it to the city bike-sharing program, and then the theft is discovered, the city has to give it back to you -- even though it was being shared by several people. The question of what to do for the innocent people who might now be left "bikeless" is an important and related issue, but it is not the issue, and their reliance on your stolen bicycle doesnʻt make it any less a theft!


 * Jere:Without asserting an adjudicating authority, and a body of law, you cannot assert a crime, or "illegality" of any sort. In the case of the Hawaiian Revolution, all attempts to bring the royalist position before any adjudicating authority and body of law have been met with failure.  You cannot make annexation a crime if there was no law against it, and no authority to adjudicate various interpretations of that law. --JereKrischel 23:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Laualoha:Sorry, but taking somebodyʻs peaceful government by force is a crime. Taking control of that government (which you were instrumental in stealing) from the thief without the peopleʻs consent or regard to their protest, is a crime.  Ya canʻt catch-22 your way out of that. Laualoha 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Jere:Again, please cite the law in effect in 1893 that declared that to be true. And then cite the adjudicating body that could have decided between the two points of view regarding the Hawaiian Revolution.


 * Kamehameha the Great took away peaceful governments by force as he unified the islands. He took control without popular consent, or regard to any protests.  Did he commit a crime by your standards as well?  How do we hold him accountable? --JereKrischel 02:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Laualoha:Of course analogies will never tell the story of whatʻs happened to us. But then, the point is very simple: Our government and our lands were stolen, period. And thatʻs illegal under anybodyʻs law. Laualoha 22:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Jere:You are welcome to your POV, but there is no "period", and that isn't "illegal under anybody's law". This is a contentious issue, and both sides believe something very different.  Our job, as Wikipedians, is to strive for NPOV as best we can, and insisting that your point of view is exclusively true is not the way to do that.  We must sympathetically present both sides, and make it clear that the weight of actual historical reference, regardless of how many voices have cried out against the annexation of Hawaii, has been one of acceptance of its legitimacy. --JereKrischel 23:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Laualoha:As I clearly state below, I am not pushing this POV in the article. This is a talk forum, where it belongs.Laualoha 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

p.s. Iʻm not asserting this point in the article, but I think you are forcibly asserting the counterpoint, and I really think we need to leave it neutral and get on to other things, donʻt you?Laualoha 22:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)