This blog is about Hawaii's status as an independent country under prolonged illegal occupation by the United States, and the history, culture, law & politics of the islands.
This is absolute must watch. We’ve seen Sarah Vowell on The Daily Show before, and enjoy how she shares history with her dry wit and puts things in ways you can easily relate to. As Jon says, “I laugh, but I learn.”
Well, now she’s written a book on Hawai’i, Unfamiliar Fishes. She describes the “orgy of imperialism” of the summer of 1898. And she nails it. Kekula said when it was over, “that was one of the most comprehensive statements on Hawaii ever presented in such a broad media.” A whole lot of very well-informed, engaged people watch Jon Stewart. And the way she explained it was a truth that many people probably heard for the first time. A lot of people will read her book. She explains the context of the Spanish-American War, the role for Hawaii as “a naval base for our forthcoming invasions,” the missionary family children who “overthrew the Hawaiian queen so as to hand the Hawaiian Islands over to the United States,” mentions the anti-annexation petitions, and compares the joint resolution as “the sort of law New Jersey would use to declare a day Jon Bon Jovi Day.”
By Sarah Vowell
(Riverhead Hardcover, Hardcover, 9781594487873, 256pp.)
Publication Date: March 22, 2011
Description
From the bestselling author of The Wordy Shipmates, an examination of Hawaii, the place where Manifest Destiny got a sunburn.
Many think of 1776 as the defining year of American history, when we became a nation devoted to the pursuit of happiness through self- government. In Unfamiliar Fishes, Sarah Vowell argues that 1898 might be a year just as defining, when, in an orgy of imperialism, the United States annexed Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Guam, and invaded first Cuba, then the Philippines, becoming an international superpower practically overnight.
Among the developments in these outposts of 1898, Vowell considers the Americanization of Hawaii the most intriguing. From the arrival of New England missionaries in 1820, their goal to Christianize the local heathen, to the coup d’état of the missionaries’ sons in 1893, which overthrew the Hawaiian queen, the events leading up to American annexation feature a cast of beguiling, and often appealing or tragic, characters: whalers who fired cannons at the Bible-thumpers denying them their God-given right to whores, an incestuous princess pulled between her new god and her brother-husband, sugar barons, lepers, con men, Theodore Roosevelt, and the last Hawaiian queen, a songwriter whose sentimental ode “Aloha ‘Oe” serenaded the first Hawaiian president of the United States during his 2009 inaugural parade.
With her trademark smart-alecky insights and reporting, Vowell lights out to discover the off, emblematic, and exceptional history of the fiftieth state, and in so doing finds America, warts and all.
HONOLULU—On Monday, March 14, 2011, Representative Mele Carroll introduced House Concurrent Resolution 107 calling for the establishment of a joint legislative investigating committee to investigate the status of two executive agreements entered into in 1893 between the United States President Grover Cleveland and Queen Lili‘uokalani of the Hawaiian Kingdom, called the Lili‘uokalani Assignment (January 17, 1893) and the Agreement of Restoration (December 18, 1893). The Lili‘uokalani Assignment mandates the President to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law, and the Agreement of Restoration mandates the President to restore the Hawaiian Kingdom government as it was prior to illegal landing of U.S. troops on January 16, 1893, and thereafter the Queen to grant amnesty to certain people who committed treason.
The purpose and duties of the joint investigating committee shall be to inquire into the status of the executive agreements by holding meetings and hearings as necessary, receiving all information from the inquiry, and submitting a final report to the Legislature. Representative Mele Carroll stated that the purpose of House Concurrent Resolution 107 is to “ensure that we, as Legislators, who took an oath to support and defend not only the Constitution of the State of Hawai‘i, but also the Constitution of the United States, must be mindful of our fiduciary duty and obligation to conform to the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. As Majority Whip for the House of Representatives of the State of Hawai‘i, it is my duty to bring the executive agreements to the attention of the Hawai‘i State Legislature and that the joint investigating committee have the powers necessary to receive all information for its final report to the Legislature.”
UPDATE: MARCH 13, 2011 — On March 13, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint. Plaintiff’s Motion concludes: “In its Order, the Court admits it could resolve this case “through a straightforward analysis of federal and international law,” but declines to do so because of the political question doctrine. As stated above, the political question doctrine is a flawed legal argument that fails to support Defendants’ motion to dismiss because the U.S. Executive recognized Hawai`i as a sovereign and independent State since 1844, and the Lili`uokalani assignment is an extension of that sovereignty fully recognized and adhered to by President Cleveland in 1893 in his negotiations with Queen Lili`uokalani, executive of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Accordingly, the Court’s analysis of case law, rules, statutes and the political question doctrine have no relevance to the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants under the Lili`uokalani assignment, whereby this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. §1350. For these reasons set forth above, this Court’s Order should be reconsidered and Defendants’ motion to dismiss should be denied. The Motion, as well as all court filings, can be downloaded at http://hawaiiankingdom.org/sai-obama.shtml under the heading “Court Docket Filings.”
UPDATE: MARCH 10, 2011 — On March 9, 2011, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issues Order granting the U.S. Attorney’s motion to dismiss. In her opinion, Judge Kollar-Kotelly, states, “Plaintiff argues that he is not challenging the legality of the State of Hawaii and his conviction but is merely asserting a claim for a violation of the Liliuokalani Assignment under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350. However, in order to find that Defendants have violated the Liliuokalani Assignment as alleged by Plaintiff—or even to conclude that Plaintiff is an alien capable of bringing claims under the Alien Tort Statute rather than a U.S. citizen—the Court would have to determine that the annexation of Hawaii by the United States was unlawful and void. As described above, that is a political question that this Court cannot decide. The fact that the answer might be gleaned through a straightforward analysis of federal and international law does not matter; “[t]he political question doctrine deprives federal courts of jurisdiction, based on prudential concerns, over cases which would normally fall within their purview.” Lin, 561 F.3d at 506; see id. (“We do not disagree with Appellants’ assertion that we could resolve this case through treaty analysis and statutory construction; we merely decline to do so as this case presents a political question which strips us of jurisdiction to undertake that otherwise familiar task.“) (internal citations omitted). Therefore, the Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
What is profound is that the Court admits the existence of the executive agreements, which is the basis of Plaintiff’s claim for relief, and the case can be resolved through treaty analysis and statutory construction, but because of the political question doctrine they are unable to grant relief to the Plaintiff for tort injuries. An appeal will be made to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that will address why the political question doctrine should not prevent the Court from granting relief in an Alien Tort Statute case. The Court also distinguished between a 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss on subject matter jurisdictional grounds, which assumes facts alleged in the complaint to be true; and a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for Plaintiff’s complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, where the basis of the lawsuit, which is the executive agreement, does not exist. The Court stated this is not a 12(b)(6) motion.
With the Native Hawaiian Recognition Bill highly unlikely to pass Congress, the state Legislature is moving on a similar bill that would begin the process of establishing a Native Hawaiian government entity that would negotiate with the state and federal government in a manner similar to Native Americans.
At a joint hearing Monday of the Senate Ways and Means and Judiciary committees, opponents of the bill insisted on testifying, even though Judiciary Chairman Clayton Hee said previous committees have heard substantial testimony.
The proposal is opposed by advocates for full Hawaiian independence, because it assumes continued U.S. and state government control of Hawaii. The proposal would require Native Hawaiians to prove ancestry and vote, first on delegates to a convention and then on the product of the convention’s work.
The committees approved the bills, with a two no votes from Republican Sen. Sam Slom and Democrat Sen. Will Espero.
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs spent $3,192,547 on lobbyists for the Akaka bill — legislation that has failed to pass since it was first introduced 10 years ago.
Today was another day of victory for the Committee of Hawaiian Nationals and for all who labor on to Free Hawaii from the bondage of U.S. domination.
As thousands gathered at the State Capitol for the opening of the legislative 2011 session of the “State of Hawaii,” a small group of us were there to remind them that theirs is actually a “State of Hewa.”
