The American Secessionist Blog: Hawaiian Independence Weblog

Friday, March 25, 2005

Hawaiian Independence Weblog

"Chloe Edinger from Kihei has a letter in the Maui News about what she has learned about the events of 1893 in her modern Hawaiian history class at her high school, and says 'I appreciate the opportunity to live in Hawaii and I am convinced foreigners should have to learn the history of this land before they enjoy it.' "

"Foreigners" would include all you vacationeers from the "mainland". Hawaii has a solid case for independence. Seccession seems the only remedy for so many of our ills, let it begin in Hawaii.

¶ 4:47 PM

Comments:

Mahalo for the link and your comments on Hawaii's independence. I want to point out, however, that we do not see Hawaii's independence as secession. It is more than just a semantic difference, but an important legal distinction. There was never a valid cession of Hawaii's sovereignty or territory to the United States. The legal situation is that the U.S. is illegally occupying Hawaii, but the identity of the nation-state of Hawaii has never been extinguished. So we are not trying to secede, to remove Hawaii from the union, but rather showing how Hawaii was never legitimately a part of the union, and seeking to end the prolonged illegal occupation of Hawaii. It makes it a much stronger legal case. So we do not feel that secession is the proper term to apply to Hawaii, and, without judgment one way or another about those who are secessionists elsewhere, we do not refer to ourselves as secessionists.

# posted by

scott crawford : 5:11 AM

Scott,

I agree 100% that Hawaii was illegally annexed, improperly administered as a territory and nefariously tricked into statehood.

The argument for outright independence is a viable argument with the exception of the fact that a de facto Hawaiian government does exist as a state and that state is part of the union. De facto governments can and do over time gain legitimacy, regardless of the nature of their birth. The de facto Hawaiian government will not simply admit it illegitimacy and concede power. Hawaiians seeking independence are then left with two choices, 1) revolt and over throw the de facto state government or 2) utilize the philosophy of secession to take the de facto government out of the Union and then reestablish a legitimate government. The second option is the only bloodless choice.

# posted by

El Cid : 1:48 AM

Obvious a bloodless option is the best, I am a Hawaiian Israeli resideing is Israel since 1982, but hardly disconnected from our cause for justice. I have offered to bring this matter to the Israeli Govt. to request an audience for a rep. from the islands to present the cause to bring it to an international level. I believe the Israeli Govt. can help us achieve this goal. Politically it has some very interesting undertones. I again bring this opportunity to the readers to help me push someone on your side of the world into action!!! I was brought here maybe to help do something on this side of the world for our Hawaiian Heritage!

Aloha No,
Nadav Yair
(972)52-4015566
Israel

# posted by

nadav : 8:34 AM

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

News and opinions on secession and secessionist movements around the world. The objective of the American Secession Project is to place secession in the mainstream of political thought as a viable solution to contemporary problems.

To the People of the various States:

AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new form of government for the various united states. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the disbanding of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in the making. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.