Talk:Legal status of Hawaii/Archive 7

Removing POV pushing
Jere:I notice that the statement "All governments who had diplomatic relations with the Kingdom of Hawaii responded with the extension of recognition to the Provisional Government and subsequently the Republic of Hawaii." is being consistently softened to Some governments. I've changed it to Every - it cannot be factually stated that it was only some governments. If you'd like to put a citation in regarding a *belief* somewhere in a detailed section, we can assert the difference of opinion between the facts expressed in things like the Morgan Report, Kuykendall and Andrade, and whatever reference you find that indicates that recognition was not universal. --JereKrischel 14:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

House of Kawananakoa
?:Shouldn't there be some mention of the House of Kawananakoa since it is considered the historically recognized presumptive heirs of the Kingdom of Hawai'i?

-70.176.93.225 06:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Jere:I don't know how you could possibly make that assertion. The Kawananakoa family has never made any legal claim, only ceremonial ones, from what I understand... --JereKrischel 23:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Texas as another regional American Independence Movement
LarryQ: To this paragraph:

This article deals only with theoretical arguments regarding Hawaiʻi's de jure status under certain interpretations of international law. The debate is considered by some critics to resemble the same academic discourse being argued by several other activist groups in the United States, including the Texan and Alaskan Independence Movements[citation needed]. Hawaiian sovereignty proponents and some scholars believe that Hawaiʻi's history as an independent nation, the presence of the U.S. military[6][7][8] and the asserted violations of international treaties make the situation of Hawaiʻi unique. Skeptics, meanwhile, see no great difference in the assertions of Hawaiian sovereigny activists and regional independence movements.

I added the following:

such as in Texas which was also a formerly independent nation annexed without a popular vote and violently reoccupied against the will of the Texan people during the American Civil War.

This was challenged as POV pushing and reverted.

However, I feel this sentence is factual and in context to this paragraph. The Republic of Texas (group) makes arguments that Texas was illegally annexed by the US via a Joint Resolultion of Congress, that the people of Texas never had a vote in the matter, and that when they had the option of secession (or restoration as the annextaion was in their opinion illegal) the Texan people voted to leave the USA. Just like Hawaii, an invasion ensued and Texas was forced back into the Union which in the minds of the Texan nationalists Texas never was legally a part of in the first place. This is similiar to Hawaiian sovereignty claims of illegal annexation via joint resolution of Congress, lack of consent by the people, and illegal invasion.

How is this POV? Is seems very relevant to article at hand when the article already claims that the legal status of Hawaii is similiar to other regional independence groups in the USA. It adds to a statement which has been in this article for some time. Is there a better way this can be written to add this to appear non-POV?

I am going to start a Legal Status of Texas article soon. I am not a proponent of Texas independence. However, as there is an article on this for Hawaii there is a justification for this in Texas and Alaska as well which also has a strong regional independence movement. Any suggestions for writing these are appreciated. I have hundreds of Wikipedia articles which I have started and I am not intetested in having my first article deletion. Thanks. LarryQ 04:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Jere:Just a minor note - Hawaii was not invaded by anyone, ever. 162 peacekeepers, who never fired a shot, do not equate to the Union army at Galveston.  The Republic of Hawaii, which maintained its existence for 5 years without any support from the United States, sought annexation, and subsequently statehood. --JereKrischel 02:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Arjuna:Pardon my prior reversion -- I think I understand your point better now. It did come across as a POV push though, and just a couple of suggestions in terms of tone. One I'm not up on specific Texas history to know the nuances, but my understanding was that annexation, despite perhaps not being put to a popular vote, was nonetheless ardently desired by the population. I might be wrong there, but in any case, this would need citation to demonstrate that this was the case. Two, to speak of Texas being "violently re-occupied after the Civil War" seems unnecessarily inflammatory -- this was, after all at the end of a vicious civil war, with all that entails, and re-occupation under arms, at the hands of the victors, generally comes along with the territory -- literally. I'm not aware of any massacres following end of hostilities, but who knows. As to the point by the other editor above, he is correct that Hawaii was never "invaded" in the way that term is understood, but it is at the very least debatable whether or not the method of deployment of U.S. troops in Honolulu was quite as friendly as he suggested. No one died at least. So finally, I'm not sure how directly relevant the history of Texas is to that of Hawaii, so how extensive a mention of this there should be in this article is questionable. I wish you only the best with your new article. Aloha, Arjuna 20:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

LarryQ:Thanks to both of you for your comments. I agree with you that the US military intervention (if this was what it was) differed sharply in Hawaii than it did in Texas 28 years earlier. I will rework this to make it less POV sounding. Feel free to edit this if you think you can make the point clearer.

“So finally, I'm not sure how directly relevant the history of Texas is to that of Hawaii, so how extensive a mention of this there should be in this article is questionable.”

To begin, the point that arguments used by the Hawaiian soveriegnty community are very similar to ones used by members of other independence groups in the US including Texas and Alaska as is already mentioned in this article. As such, I thought it wise to expand just a little explaining this further. And my elaboration is not that large of one as I was just expanding the last sentence of the paragraph.

Second, Texas and Hawaii have a lot in common. Both were formerly independent nations. Both were annexed via a joint resolution of Congress which many have pointed to as perhaps not being a valid method of annexation and is hence perhaps not legal under international law. Annexation was not voted on in either Hawaii or Texas. Both Hawaiians and Texans protested this. In the case of Hawaii, a now controversial petition was circulated which suggests that Hawaiians were opposed. In Texas, the first time the issue was on the ballot, the citizens of the state voted over 80% to not be part of the USA. Both Hawaii and Texas saw American troops land. This can be seen in different ways but Texan and Hawaiian sovereignty proponents point to these military interventions as proof of illegal occupation. Both sides claim that the prior governments still legally exist (Kingdom of Hawaii and Republic of Texas), that they are not seeking secession as they are not legally part of the USA, and they want the former governments restored.

I have no desire to add all of the above to the article. I am just stating my reasoning on the talk page here. However, I think what I have added helps to make the point better in the paragraph in question. There is a strong similarity between arguments used by both camps. LarryQ 00:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)