yes i think that would be quite possible. I would like if you have the time to read a comment of mine in response to your own comment on the video (Was KOSOVO’s Declaration of INDEPENDENCE legal? Is it a STATE?) I would be interested in your opinion, thank you in advance for this.
@@AhmetwithaT I can see that argument. But then again I suspect it might have been a bit different. It really held an interesting strategic location. Also, the islands are not as small or as dispersed as the South Pacific Islands. Granted, it would not have been a superpower, but I suspect it could have carved out a rather nice, if not prosperous, place for itself.
Thank you so much. I was really hoping that some viewers from the US and Hawaii would comment. I did wonder how much if this is generally known in the US, and how the story might be taught at schools - if at all.
@@JamesKerLindsay I think "mainlanders" generally know very little about how Hawaii came to be part of the US. I would guess Hawaiians know more but I am curious also. I know there is a small pro-independence movement in Hawaii as well!
As a Tongan person this gives me perpetual rage, I hate how all the Micronesian islands can have their independence simply because they were taken at the end of WW2 while the Kingdom of Hawai’i was outright illegally occupied and somehow deemed more justified because it was in the 1800’s and because native Hawaiians have become a minority group in their own country. #PolynesianSolidarity
Thanks Selwyn. It was such a sad story to look into. I remember reading years ago about Hawaii and thinking how this was a story of annexation that is now so rarely discussed. I had wanted to look into it in more detail and do a video on it for ages. There was a lot of material I couldn’t include. But it was one of those cases where I really felt a huge injustice has been perpetrated. But there were some positive elements. I know it didn’t fix what happened, but President Cleveland’s statement was a rather touching statement. And the fact that Congress apologised for the US actions is also a rare example of a country owning up to a fundamental injustice and saying sorry. It would be nice if more could have the decency to at least admit wrong doing. It doesn’t reverse what happened. But it does acknowledge that something deeply wrong happened.
@@JamesKerLindsay Please anyone feel free to correct and/or criticize my comments. The annexation (and eventual statehood) of Hawaii was not only an injustice against Hawaiian natives and Hawaiian nationals, but it was also - and perhaps more notably - a fraud perpetrated against the People of the United States by their own government. A joint resolution annexing Hawaii was indeed legally binding on the People of the United States, but no treaty was ever made with another sovereign and approved with the advice and consent of the Senate as required by international law AND the U.S. Constitution to expand U.S. territory (even the dispute over Texas was eventually settled by the Treaty of Hidalgo Guadalupe). Hawaii was simply taken by conquest, beginning with Midway Atoll on August 28, 1867. Hence the significance of the later August 12, 1898 occupation date applicable to relevant U.S. law rather than the July 7, 1898 date of the U.S. Joint Resolution - which is unlike the dates relevant to other territorial claims pursuant to U.S. treaties. Indeed the constitutionality and extraterritorial effect of Hawaii’s annexation was hotly debated by the Senate on July 3, 1898 (31 Cong. Rec. 6635) and even questioned by the U.S. Attorney General Douglas Kmiec in a legal opinion written in 1988. But alas, as explained by former Senator John Coit Spooner during a Senate hearing on February 28, 1900, the decision to annex Hawaii was “a political question, not subject to review by the courts.” (33 Cong. Rec. 2391). To illustrate the effect of this doctrine, in Jones v. United States, 137 U.S. 202 (1890) the U.S. Supreme Court held as follows: “Who is the sovereign, de jure or de facto, of a territory is not a judicial, but a political, question, the determination of which by the legislative and executive departments of any government conclusively binds the judges, as well as all other officers, citizens, and subjects of that government.” Id. It further held: “All courts of justice are bound to take judicial notice of the territorial extent of the jurisdiction exercised by the government whose laws they administer, or of its recognition or denial of the sovereignty of a foreign power, as appearing from the public acts of the legislature and executive, although those acts are not formally put in evidence, nor in accord with the pleadings.” Id. Thus the decision to annex, regardless of whether or not it complies with international law and/or the U.S. Constitution with respect to the extraterritorial effect of a joint resolution, evades checks and balances and its consequences are long lasting. For example, if Hawaii’s annexation was indeed unconstitutional and/or lacking extraterritorial effect, then Hawaii is technically a foreign country masquerading as a domestic entity and being allowed to participate in the political process of the United States. Moreover, it continues to unjustly inflate the influence of the Democratic Party over the federal legislative process. Therefore, although birth in Hawaii indeed confers statutory U.S. citizenship and the right to vote in U.S. elections, representatives from Hawaii are no more entitled to involvement in the affairs of the U.S. Congress as are representatives from American Samoa, Guantanamo Bay or Navassa Island. Thus Hawaii’s influence in U.S. politics ought to be at least as offensive to Americans as election interference by Russia or any other foreign country.
As a Welsh man, seeing annexed to the USA which has killed the Hawai'ian language and culture makes me very sad. Absolute tragedy. And at the same time the Americans cry when they say their culture and language (English) is under threat - absolutely no sense of irony.
Thanks, Dano. It is a fascinating story, isn’t it? I remember reading about it years ago and wanting to look into it in more detail. Interestingly, there was a lot more I could have included, but obviously I was limited. For example, there was the time in 1854 that a first draft treaty of annexation was being considered and the British consul in Hawaii persuaded the Hawaiians to reject it as they would join the southern US and this could suddenly find themselves being enslaved. Anyway, I hope you are doing well.
@James Ker-Lindsay Yes, interesting indeed - and even more so with that extra piece of information you gave above (which incidentally took place on a parallel timeline to our previous chat, namely, when Όθων was king of Greece 😉). I often feel it sad to see, how much Europeans and their descendants have interfered in other cultures all over the globe. Looking at the European map, there are several sovereign countries with a population similar to or below that of Hawaii, so from that aspect, they could exist as a sovereign country today.
@@lvoldum I completely agree. Interestingly, Britain did actually try to keep Hawaii independent after 1854, but by the end of the century, with fears growing about the rise of Germany, and the need for a closer relationship with the US, it simply gave up.
@James Ker-Lindsay Yes, especially Kaiser Wilhelm II was not one to joke with... The 1800s certainly contain interesting history. As an example, I find the Empire of Brazil particularly interesting - a part of a kingdom breaking free (by unilateral secession - no UN to disapprove then 😉), and a visionary Emperor (Dom Pedro II - his father wasn't worth much) developing the country socially , democratically, and industrially, abolishing slavery, always with the greater good of the people in mind, but sadly dethroned through a military coup. Perhaps you already know this, but the present Brazilian flag's green colour is the Portuguese Royal House of Bragança, and the yellow lozenge is the House of Habsburg (the first Empress was Maria Leopoldina of Austria).
Fun Fact: Today and basically since their Statehoods Hawaii has been heavly Democratic and Alaska has been heavily Republican, meaning what they ecxpected in the 50's completely fliped on its head
James can you make a video on how the UN became so weak? For example if the UN in the cold war said to a country to decolonize a territory, the country would decolonize it. Now the UN does not have any power on countries such as the US, France and the UK.
The UN never had this power, large-scale decolonization didn’t happen until it became clear that anti-colonial movements were often Communist in nature, that was 15-20 years after the UN told the world to decolonize
Seriously? You use 3 western democracies as your examples of your point? Allow me to fix your last sentence: ".... now the U.N. does not have any power on countries such as Russia, China, or puppet states like Syria." There..... all fixed.
90% voter turnout of 150,000 with 133,000 for statehood. 1959 Hawaii Population was 622,000. That 133,000 represents 23% of the population - which is about all the white people in Hawaii. The people of Hawaii, whether Native Hawaiians or other Local People, did not have a say in their destiny.
Thanks. You are absolutely right. I know it might seem far fetched to think of an independent Kingdom of Hawaii, but you are absolutely right. There’s no reason why it couldn’t have been like Tonga. It is a very sad story. I’d long been fascinated in Hawaii’s story, but I really enjoyed researching this one in detail. There was so much I had to leave out. At one point, I thought of making it a two-parter.
I think the worst mistake that hawaii did was to ask the us to grant protectorate status that led hawaii eventually led to the overthrow of the monarchy and the gradual annexation of hawaii into the united states
Idk if it would necessarily be independent or if such a scenario would’ve been “better”. During WW2 had Hawaii not been a US territory with a significant American presence it most likely would’ve faced a brutal prolonged Japanese invasion and subsequent occupation, which probably would’ve lead to thousands of deaths. Then you can imagine an American invasion/bombing campaign kicking the Japanese out, and then another occupation by the US. Who knows if it would be independent after all of that? It’s an interesting scenario nonetheless.
@@awesomeboy4353 honestly Hawaii’s fate was sealed when Britain refused to make it a protectorate. On the surface Hawaii had a better arrangement, but in reality being an independent Kingdom made Hawaii vulnerable to manipulation of the American settlers that were already present, and whom would have likely accepted status as a British protectorate, so while Tonga lost its independence at the time, it retained the kingdom’s internal sovereignty allowing it to simply regain its independence as an already-existent kingdom when the British left.
@@matt1sullivan318, Imperialists ALWAYS come up with flimsy little excuses to rationalize their theft of other people's country (let me give you some examples): The Brits "had to" keep India, The Americans "had to" steal 50% of Mexico's land mass in the 1845 war, the Germans "had to" invade Russia in WWII, the Soviets "had to" steal China's Manchuria region in the closing days of WWII, The Americans "had to" attack Vietnam & install a puppet dictator regime in the south. Your post is as flimsy a fig leaf as any other.
Haha! Brilliant idea! I might just have to give that a thought. I did have one lined up though, but let me see. (The problem is finding the time to script. It depends on how my work week shapes up.) In the meantime, I hope all is well with you.
@@JamesKerLindsay Thank you! Yeah I am doing well. Just hoping the British government doesn't change its mind when it comes to reopening! I want to go do things rather than stay at home all day. (I live in the UK just like you I believe) Keep up the good work and don't overwork yourself. If you can't do it in time then don't. And in regards to scriptwriting, you wouldn't need to do it on Sealand if you wanted. Just something funny. I do know video making is very hard as I have a friend who does it. But just keep working hard and don't give up it's great to see you hit 15k subscribers! Just remember me when you get bigger!
If Hawaii was not part of the US during the Second World War, there wouldn't have been the attack on Pearl Harbor. Japan would have more likely annexed Hawaii, as they did with most Micronesian and Polynesian islands. Hawaii being the center point of the Pacific, this could and would have given Japan more power over the region. And since annexing Hawaii wouldn't have been an attack on the United States, Japan may not have declared war on them. Maybe I'm stretching this a bit far, but the world might have looked a lot different today if it weren't for the American annexation of Hawaii. The impact of what may seem of small historical events may have more significance than many of us think. Anyway, this is just fun speculation. The possibilities of what could and could not have happened is endless, so I have absolutely no idea what would actually have happened if the United States did not annex Hawaii.
Thank you so much! That is a fascinating counter factual. And I suspect that you are right. The question is whether the US could have allowed Hawaii to fall to Japan, thus letting it control the entire Pacific. One wonders if there might have been agreement to keep it neutral, this actually preserving its independence. A sort of replication of the French and British decision a century earlier. It really is a fascinating ‘what if’, isn’t it!?
@@JamesKerLindsay ooo yes this (what if ’, isn’t it !?) makes the mind spin fast, looking for many possible versions, ooo yes this is exciting, beside to your nice videos, there are many good commentators here, as far as I can tell, whether you agree with them or not, one point of view is always interesting, it is extremely addictive to see different perspectives on a topic.
Tamu Japan will still attack US because it's the US that was responsible for the economic blockade of steel supplies against Imperial Japan. Nevertheless it may still attempt to annexed the islands however this could also be untrue if Hawaiian monarchy either had an alliance with the Japanese or a recognized neutrality.
Question: what Polynesian and Micronesian islands did Japan annex? Also, aren’t Hawaii and Rapa Nui/Easter Island the most isolated islands in the Pacific? So I’m not sure if Hawaii is the centre point of the Pacific. But it would have been a good military tactic to try to annex Hawaii given its proximity to the US and thus base movements from there. Although, I’m not sure how easy that would have been. I’m sure the Japanese would’ve given it a good go. I’m just not sure the Hawaiians would’ve gone down that easy.
Haha! Yes. Interestingly, RUclips has introduced a new checking system to make sure videos comply with regulations. It seemed to be taking ages. Because of the topics I cover - conflict, etc - I think it gets particularly nervous when I post!
The Hawaiian Islands is such a unique case because unlike other conquests during that time period, the Hawaiian Islands was internationally recognized as a neutral independent state--a fact which, legally speaking, preserved her continuity as a subject of international law at a time when it would have otherwise been permanently extinguished under similar circumstances. This allowed her identity as a state to endure not only a sham revolution involving foreign intervention by the United States in 1893, but also subsequent capture by the United States during the Spanish-American War. Her neutrality effectively allowed her to transform these conquests into mere belligerent occupation, which continues to exist today. This special right of neutral states was recognized by legal authorities, including the U.S. Supreme Court, as early as 1815 in the case of the British conquest of a colony of Denmark. "So far as neutrals are concerned, it belongs to the conquering State, but does not form a part of it. It is held by the right of possession and not by complete title, and is therefore subject to the rights of postliminy." Henry W. Halleck, International Law 812 (1861).
Note that Native Hawaiians are only a portion of the population of Hawaiian nationals entitled to resume the exercise of sovereignty over Hawaii. The Nation-State of the Hawaiian Islands is a Nation-State in continuity and member of the Family of Nations since 1843. Hawaiian ruling Monarchs were indeed only selected from the Native Hawaiian population before the illegal overthrow of the government in 1893, but the national population as a whole was and still is comprised of Native and non Native Hawaiians alike. The Hawaiian government was indeed overthrown but the State was never extinguished. The sovereignty of the Hawaiian People has merely been suspended and their government has been in an extended period of interregnum - such as when a King dies without an heir. Thus the United States annexed Hawaii as a military necessity and it exercises sovereignty on behalf of the Hawaiian People under the doctrine of necessity until such time as their lawful Hawaiian government is reinstated and their independence is restored. However, this is not to say that the United States has legitimate authority over Hawaii because the United States and the State of Hawaii are most certainly illegitimate governments with respect to the Hawaiian Islands. It is impossible for United States laws to have extraterritorial effect in a foreign State in the absence of a treaty, unconditional surrender or utter destruction of the State and Hawaii is no exception. Moreover, the fraudulent annexation of Hawaii by the United States was an unconstitutional fraud against the People of the United States that continues to be perpetuated by the Democratic Party to gain undue influence over U.S. politics. This fraud also allows federal spending on what is effectively a foreign country and allows foreign interference with U.S. domestic affairs. This fraud can and will be repealed. Hawaii will not be set free through clever legal maneuvering or by "forcing" the United States to take corrective action. The people of Hawaii and the people of the United States, as well as the remaining people of the world must collectively support Hawaii's emancipation because it's the correct action and it's best for everyone. The weaponization of Hawaii as the most militarized place on earth has allowed the United States to establish and maintain a global empire and powerful sphere of influence at the expense of the rest of the world. By allowing Hawaii to remain weaponized and held captive by the United States, the entire world is responsible for the extreme levels of inequality that exists today. We should all accept our shared responsibility for allowing the privileged to exploit those most vulnerable. It's no different than standing idle while a parent abuses a defenseless child.
@@deoccupyhawaii6268 Whatever your process entails, just without the charade of repatriation as if it's part of the "science" of the law of nations. I'd be happy to get into a real discussion about the practical details of de-occupation but the law is already on the side of Hawaiians so there is nothing legal that must be done that hasn't already done. For example, if someone breaks into your house is there a science to follow in order to for you to have the right to ask them to leave so you can have your house back? And if they do leave, can your brother then kick you out because you didn't follow the "science"? You are being ridiculous if you think full blooded Kanakas can ever be deported with or without repatriating.
@@soundmind9772 You need to do more homework on political national status and how it makes all the difference. Repatriation is necessary when the inhabitants claiming to be Hawaiian are actually foreign citizens (American native Hawaiian). Regardless if they choose to stay American the native Hawaiian will still have claim to kuleana land as an heir. Without a distinction between American native Hawaiians and Hawaiian nationals there will be no way to have a fair and lawful national vote. Pretty simple if you claim to understand international law.
Much of modern Hawaiian history, is based on illegality. The bayonet constitution in 1887. The illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government on January 17th 1893. The illegal and so-called “annexation” (which is quotation marks because it WASN’T a treaty of annexation but a joint resolution or an american law passed in congress, which has no jurisdiction outside of america's borders) in 1898. All of these illegalities created these false narratives, stories, moʻolelo that Hawaiʻi is apart of the US, when really it isn’t. In reality Hawaiʻi is being illegally occupied by the US and has been since 1893 @t
Let's not forget the illegal annexation of Kaua'i and Ni'ihau by Kamehameha II - colonized by Hawaiians, occupied by the United States, ruled by Japanese, owned by Mark Zuckerberg.
As an American, I must thank you for such a well-researched and explained summary! Most videos and even media articles, on purpose or otherwise, lack the important information to truly understand how the background setup and long process played out. Then again, most are just oversimplified hit pieces. Obviously, the Japanese Empire had its eyes on Hawaii long-term, especially constering the growing Japanese population. At times the French and then more so the German Empire was also considering its options. All very fascinating to look at and think about!
We have a treaty with japan. That's why they attacked America and not Hawaii. The united states Marines violated international laws. President Grover Cleaveland put our Queen back on her thrown.
This video was published over a year ago and yet Professor is as well-polished and research as he always is -- bravo! Sometimes it's difficult to imagine how many innocent people must have died, how much culture erased, in our annexation of Hawaii, despite Hawaii today seeming like an inseparable part of the Union.
My own take on why the UK did not guarantee the Kingdom of Hawaii's independence was more to do with imperial affinity and overreach. Imperial United States was actually a new British Empire made initially from independent colonial settlers with the same imperial mindset that made Canada, Australia and, to a lesser extent, New Zealand. They were also almost identical in their heritage and civic institutions. Although geopolitical rivals, it would be far better for the BE to have the US control Hawaii than any other power. For the US it was a logical geopolitical acquisition as much as Georgia or Crimea would be to Russia. Whereas most of the British Empire, as a "salt water" empire, was non-settler colonial, the US as a contiguous land empire was unrestricted generally by either salt water or population limitations. As in the Oregon territory, overwhelming settler colonization wins against a salt water empire's imperial control. What's really interesting in this video to me is how the 17th Century English experience of political dualism played out in the justification and opposition to annexation. Capitalism (which includes economic control and geopolitical positioning) and the Constitutional Liberalism that is often at odds with it!
As an American from the mainland (the midwest, specifically) I find the story of how Hawaii became a state to be saddening. Looking at Hawaii today though I see that tragic overthrow as just another part of Hawaiian history that has influenced the Hawaiian culture as it is today. Much like how nations in Europe have a long history of their own of tragic wars, occupations, and overthrows - Hawaii has it's own. The tragedies of all nations are just another part of the long and fascinating history of these places and Hawaii is no different in that regard. Of course we can look back at the U.S annexation of the Kingdom of Hawaii and acknowledge and apologize for the overthrow, but ultimately these are the cards Hawaii has been dealt by history. placement in the United States on par with California or Ohio.
Thanks. It is such a fascinating story. What is surprising is just how few Americans seem to know much about it. I teach a lot of US students and they aren’t really aware of what happened. More widely, it’s actually quite an interesting ‘what if’ situation. Some say it would have been conquered by Japan anyway. We’ll never know, but it is interesting to wonder.
@@JamesKerLindsay I was very much aware of what happened in Hawaii and I thought you did a wonderful job describing it. Of course I love US History, and the history of all great Nations has its ups and downs and goods and bads and how we acquired some of our territories is certainly a part of that. I wish that I could say that I was surprised that American students were not aware of these things, but I'm not. Too many American young people are shamefully ignorant of our own history and heritage.
Prof, you missed a *GIGANTIC* fact: Hawai’i was never “Annexed”; USA unlawfully passed a mere, majority-only vote in a joint resolution; per the Law, the Constitution, an annexation MUST be MUTUALLY agreed to (which there was no consent of the Hawaiian people - it was 90+ % against annexation) and MUST be a TREATY that garners 2/3 vote in the SENATE-only (not a joint resolution b/w the House & Senate which has zero jurisdiction or authority in a foreign affairs matter). The Senate could not garner 2/3 vote - due to the to knowledge of the formal written protest of the citizens - so USA violated its own laws, disregarded the consent of the governed, and wrested control of Hawai’i. In international law today, it has been stated that the Hawaiian Kingdom exists in continuity - TODAY - under a “strange form of Occupation by the US”! Subsequent “Statehood” status is moot - the operative legal doctrine is that it is the result of the “fruit of the poisonous tree.” And, it is *RECTIFIABLE* today, as well. See the featured vid on RUclips: “Hawaiian Kingdom Academia” - you have an obligation to correct your summary of events, as it is fatally flawed information & is unintentionally (on your part) a perpetuation of the lie which has strangled Hawai’i since 1893 - this is NOT a resolved issue, but one that Just and Honorable people must aid in making right a terrible wrong. Please fix your presentation as just a start. Mahalo & Aloha! (From a non-native, retired US Army settler.)
It's tempting to think of Hawaii as a nation that was illegally colonized by the USA, but the reality is that Hawaii's location is too strategic for it to remain an independent nation in a world ruled by superpowers. Can you think of a different superpower that would be less problematic to have control of Hawaii? The likelihood that Imperial Japan or China would've respected England's and France's declarations that Hawaii should not be colonized is effectively zero. The very best scenario is that Hawaii would've somehow become the capital of a "United States of Polynesia" -- but the defensibility of such a nation would've still been infeasible due to the sheer amount of exposed coastline.
Thanks. This is a very good point. I accept that Hawaii could well have fallen to China or Japan given its strategic location. In this sense, it is sad that Britain didn't agree to guarantee its sovereignty. This would have made US annexation impossible. But I think that the US would have stepped in later to serve as a protector, if only to maintain the security of the West Coast. After the war, annexation would have been impossible. Instead, it would more likely have become a free association state, like the Marshall Islands. But, equally, I could very easily see a situation where Hawaii would still be an fully independent state today. That said, I do understand that, in the context of Britain's unwillingness to guarantee Hawaii's independence, the US annexation was a preferable outcome to Japanese - or Chinese - occupation.
Perhaps you are correct that Hawaii was too strategic to remain independent in the nineteenth century, perhaps even too weak. However, this is 2021 and Hawaii doesn't need to be "controlled" by a "superpower". Hawaii can control itself just fine. It could certainly maintain its independence if it embraced the same deadly weapons technology as the United States. And why shouldn't it? Hawaii is certainly more trustworthy to keep weapons without abusing its power. The historical record is clear on this point. Private military contractors could be hired as needed for defense and Hawaiian commanding officers are just as capable as U.S. counterparts. The reality is that the weaponization of Hawaii by the U.S. is MISused to to threaten other countries into submission so their resources can be exploited for profit. An independent and neutral Hawaii would certainly disrupt the status quo of exploitation, but the reality is that if the status quo is not disrupted then extinction of humans will be certain and soon. Therefore, supporting Hawaiian independence is a human rights obligation and necessary for the survival of our species. Unfortunately, for political reasons, when Hawaiian independence is finally restored it will come at some economic cost to those who bet against it.
Yes. It is interesting that four of those seven territories named by the UN are still under US rule. I would really like to come back to them, especially Guam and American Samoa. I also keep meaning to that video on US vs NZ views on free association. So many topics to explore! :-)
@@JamesKerLindsay There was a recent US Supreme Court ruling that had to do with the citizenship rights on Guam. I don't remember the details, but I think it had to do with whether someone born on the island was considered a US citizen vis a vis travel or working rights in the US mainland.
Hawaii was never annexed by a treaty. You cannot colonize a country in the family of nations. Which Hawaii was in 1843. You can only occupy it. Hawaii has been so occupied since 1893. A government and the state are separate thing. Read Maslows International Law. Our government was overthrown. Plus Hawaii declared its neutrality in 1864.
Just visited a couple islands and all the locals made it real clear tourists, "mainlanders," and some other names I can't recall aren't welcome. From the bumper stickers to the billboards to the loudspeakers on the beaches chanting, "we aren't American," and "F#@K the white man," infront of everyone's children it was a pretty clear how they felt. Naturally I wanted to learn why they felt that way but for fear of my life I didn't dare speak to a local and ask them to educate me. The protest agitator on the loud speaker seemed very knowledgeable but given she was encouraging the crowd of locals to become violent against the tourists enjoying a beautiful day on the beach as a means of returning Hawaii's sovereignty, I felt it wouldn't a good time to learn either. This is how I have come across this video and videos like it. Thank you for the enlightenment! I will use this in conjunction with how we were treated by the locals during our trip to educate my children, friends, and family on how America stole Hawaii and why we should not trespass by visiting the islands. I find it imperative to return Hawaii's sovereignty and in accordance with the locals wishes my family and I will never again return to Hawaii. I will further assist Hawaiians by passing along this history lesson to all my friends and family in an effort to help them respect the people of Hawaii by no longer imposing on their home and land.
Thank you so much. That is so interesting to hear. And obviously it must have been a difficult experience. Often I find that people do want to be able engage on the issue. They like to feel that people are taking an interest. Although it can be different if one is considered to be a protagonist. (The same might apply if I went to Northern Ireland and tried to engage with a hardline Republican. They might naturally assume I am hostile. Obviously it is important to asses the general atmosphere.) But it is important for people in the US to understand why Hawaiians feel aggrieved. It is a shocking story. I’m guessing it isn’t taught in American schools.
What you experienced is backlash as a result of colonization, illegal occupation, subjugation, exploitation, dispossession, expropriation, indoctrination, unjust enrichment, disenfranchisement, enslavement, systemic racism, cruelty and genocide against Hawaiians for over a century. This kind of behavior is not productive at all but it's inevitable and understandable. But it's not right and must be corrected. So rather than vowing to never return to Hawaii, perhaps a better approach is to support Hawaii's independence so Hawaii can begin to heal. All Americans have a compelling interest in expelling the Hawaiian Islands from the "imperfect union" to end the fraud against the United States that began when Hawaii was illegally annexed in the absence of a treaty as required to comply with the U.S. Constitution and international law. An independent Hawaii can begin its journey toward becoming a productive member of the international community and lead by example as it did over a century ago. Rather than arriving in Hawaii unlawfully, foreigners can obtain legal permission from a legitimate Hawaiian government to visit and even immigrate to Hawaii. Surely they will be greeted by locals with ALOHA.
Haha! Thanks. Is is that obvious?! :-) Yes, I would love to do a video on Texas. I actually have family there and was in Austin for its Texas Independence Day a number of years ago. It was a fascinating experience. But I had also wanted to take a look at Hawaii for ages. I read an article about it once and was fascinated by this sad story and how its annexation was almost completely overlooked.
@@JamesKerLindsay Next time you're in SW1, make sure to stop by the building where the independent Texas Legation was for a time. There's a nifty plaque.
Lol Texas will never leave the union, like Virginia, factions within the state will declare independence from Texas proper and join the union and the succeeding state will be forced back into line. What ur saying is u want to have a broken up Texas and much weaker back in the USA lol
Thank you so much. It is a very sad story, isn’t it? As I researched it, it just became so obvious what a deeply unjust situation it was. But as I just said in a bother comment, the fact that this wrongdoing was openly acknowledged by the United States and that an unreserved apology was issued by Congress says a lot.
I'm from the Philippines! Sure we can very, very much relate to the Hawaiian experience. We may have the worst & most stupid president we have right now BUT we'd rather be independent & govern ourselves not to be dictated by white foreigners anymore. At least we maybe very poor, underdeveloped & corrupt but we are proud to have our own language, culture, traditions. In other words we are an authentic nation. You must have a Filipino blood to be a citizen except through naturalization. Being melting pot didn't saved America from issues of racism. There's no real unity in your so called "diversity" because those people in your country have very different backgrounds. Puerto Rico think twice before joining US you might loose your identity as a distinct country. 😉
Since when does joint resolution annex foreign sovereign territory? "Registered voters" you speak of were AMERICANS. Even the state insurgency knows its illegitimate when they engage with hawaiian nationals AS WE HAVE PROVEN IN CRIMINAL TRIALS. The occupation is ending. Look into Occupied Forces Hawaii Army and the works of Dr. Keanu Sai.
Indeed the occupation will end sooner than most realize but then what? No legitimate government exists at this time. We are in a period of interregnum. The actual history and legal ramifications of Hawaii's capture by the United States are understood by many at this point. You are recycling old news. Why has there been no movement to elect a new legislature or even establish a competent military government with diplomatic relations with foreign heads of State? Most Hawaiians have no idea of the power and potential that sovereignty brings, as well the extreme burden of responsibility that comes with it. If you aren't ready to fight and give your life in a civil war with Kanaka against Kanaka then you might reconsider your position.
@@soundmind9772 you obviously have no idea what we've accomplished and who we're in negotiations with. I dont expect you to want to understand, just know you're ignorant to the fact that a legitimate recognized military government has been established and is actively engaged with international entities as well as federal agencies.
@@deoccupyhawaii6268 I know exactly what you have accomplished and who you are in negotiations with to the extent that it has been revealed. If you are a military government, then act like one and either seize control of your territory or obtain PUBLIC recognition from any head of state. Otherwise you are simply another fraud that must be exposed. You are in over your head my friend.
@@soundmind9772 lol, you make a lot of noise for someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. We already control territory and have all the recognition the US Navy requires to move forward. You might not like our approach but its effective and we have more progress than anyone else ever has. What are you doing besides complaining?
I love this revelation. I have been very much interested in the story of Hawaii, well Because I do watch beautiful movie and the countries architectural outlook is amazing. I think it should have been more better and appropriate if Hawaii is independence and a Nation on her! There are lots of potential lying there!
Thanks. Yes. I’ve already done a video on Puerto Rico. ruclips.net/video/6uw3X8JulsA/видео.html And I’d really to do ones on Guam and American Samoa. I also have one I’d like to do on how the US and New Zealand differ on the concept of associated states. It sounds a bit obscure, but it’s surprisingly interesting! :-)
Samoa and Hawaii formed a permanent political confederation on 17 February 1887. Thus, irrespective of the subsequent Tripartite Convention of 1899 (ratified 16 February 1900) and U.S. executive order signed 19 February 1900 - neither of which were binding upon said confederated states - Hawaii, Samoa and 'American' Samoa are politically bound, FOREVER. history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1887/d367
@@soundmind9772 while this was enacted, I believe it was null and void when the kingdom of Hawaii no longer existed. Thus when the monarchy ended, so did the confederation. Plus if American Samoa is sovereign American soil, why are the people nationals and not citizens as it violates the 14th amendment of the constitution
@@JamesKerLindsay if you could do a video on why American Samoans are U.S. nationals and not citizens that would be awesome. Same with what status does the territory want, and why. Other videos of Guam and the CNMI would be cool. Plus the USVI since it’s the only part of the USA that was bought from Denmark
@@dylanshaffer2184 Great question! Firstly, Hawaii was not extinguished but instead became a failed state when the Queen temporary yielded her authority. Hawaii's sovereignty was merely displaced (i.e., Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia). A treaty is not null and void if one of the Nation parties becomes a failed state (i.e. Somalia). Even if, for the sake of argument, annexation was lawful (which it was not, even under U.S. law), Midway atoll was occupied but expressly excluded from annexation. Thus, Hawaii remains and Midway is precluded by modern international law from now being incorporated into the U.S. absent a treaty between recognized sovereigns. Moreover, the remaining Hawaiian Islands cannot be separated from Midway under the principle of territorial integrity (see Chagos Islands). As to the question of nationals vs. citizens, American Samoans, being a subjugated alien People under U.S. and international law, owe permanent allegiance to the U.S. under the Law of Conquest. Philippines had the same status as U.S. nationals prior to breaking their American chains. Citizenship under the 14th amendment is not available to American Samoans because of their inherent pre-existing sovereignty to their tribal governments (see Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)). U.S. Citizenship is available to persons born in Hawaii under the power of Congress, not under the Constitution. No similar law, however, exists for American Samoans.
The treaty never became operative and the United States admitted as much in the Hawaiian Claims case (Great Britain v. United States), Award of 10 November 1925. The United States further confessed to wrongdoing and committed itself to accept the consequences of such wrongdoing. Thus, the liability of the United States to the People of Hawaii is effectively unlimited. Even restoration of independence may not be enough to completely reconcile for what has been done and continues to be done. Hawaii is the Achilles heel of the United States. Hawaii will be viewed by the world as analogous to the situation in Ukraine for purposes of applicable international law, with the additional consideration that the right to restore independence in the exercise of self-determination belongs exclusively to the native people of Hawaii. Like the aboriginal Hawaiian monarchs who previously ruled Hawaii, the native population has supreme political authority to completely replace, restore, reestablish or reinstate their political system, at will, simply by exercising its prerogative to do so. The native population not only has this supremely important political right, but it also has the duty. Right cannot exist without duty.
Maybe if they had about eight million native Hawaiian people, even if they were annexed, even if they were occupied by Japan, the independence movement and the lesser appeal to the Americans of being outnumbered by the locals would have led to an actual Hawaiian state. Look at the Philippines. What if Hawaii was an independent state down to this day? For instance, if in 1993, what with the fall of the Soviet Union and much less of a need to maintain a base in the Pacific, the independence movement seized on the apology and gained steam, and the Americans just decided it wasn't worth the trouble holding on to the islands? Again, look at the Philippines. Similar histories, except the Filipinos got formal independence and even booted out the bases (with the help of a volcano, but still...). I think the Philippines is the Hawaii that never was.
It's not necessary to have eight million natives. All it takes are a few very stubborn people, native or otherwise, who are adamantly against any other outcome except for independence, and that is enough. Thanks to Red Hill, those very stubborn people have arrived.
Honestly you can say it is a sad story but there was basically an imperial cold war between the great powers who were all expanding in that era, and had America not followed suit these territories would simply have been colonized by some other, likely more brutal, power. Let me preface the rest of my reply by saying this is largely my opinion, and as an American I’m thus somewhat biased but I consider myself to be well educated on both America’s proud and not-so-proud moments. Yes America has had it’s moments of brutality and neglect, as any other power has, but on the whole America has always treated its native peoples, on both the mainland and in overseas possessions, better than almost any other empire in history. Even in America’s Indian Wars, for example General Custer was fighting against one Native American faction on behalf of, and allied with, other native tribes. In terms of comparable continental empires conquering large amounts of colonial or native territory, Imperial Russia and Imperial/Nazi Germany were far more brutal, and in terms of overseas empires Britain, Spain, France, Japan and others have historically been much more violent. For example, the people of the American Virgin Islands say that things were extremely harsh under the Danish and that when America bought the islands life improved. Would Arizona really be better off if it were still part of Mexico, or even under the old native confederacies, than it is currently as an American retirement home? Likewise would Hawaii be better off as a Tonga-like independent kingdom subject to manipulation by all the great powers in a possibly hostile manner, instead of as an incorporated territory and then a state of one power (America) in an inclusive representative manner? Even the unincorporated territories are, in my opinion, better off as American colonies than as some possible banana republic. Heck Puerto Rico’s local government pretty much is a banana republic these days, if they didn’t have American dollars pouring in they’d be totally bankrupt. In my personal opinion it has no real shot at becoming a state, beyond as a political talking point by those who believe Puerto Ricans would vote for them, as no unincorporated territory has ever become an American state. Indeed the whole point of the status is that these are foreign lands under American possession, and thus are not part of union itself the way incorporated territories are, and thus can be bought or sold, as you mentioned. For example if America ever buys Greenland it would likely be subject to this and would become an unincorporated territory. The only way to change this would be to, I presume, have a large amount of mainland Americans move to, say, Puerto Rico, and push for a new organic act as an incorporated territory. It would have to shore up a number of elements internally to meet the criteria for incorporation, so once it actually succeeded and became incorporated it would likely be on a fast track to statehood. But that’s very unlikely, as the business attraction of Puerto Rico simply doesn’t exist, its corrupt government and poor use of taxpayer dollars makes it, in my opinion, virtually uninvestable, and thus unlikely to have the requisite population growth from the mainland to make incorporation possible.
Thanks so much. I wondered what you would make of it. I suspect that you are right. Given its strategic location and its weakness, there is an argument to say that if Hawaii wasn’t the United States then it would have been another country - most probably Japan. Then again, as I also noted, it may well have been the case that the US and imperial Japan reached a compromise to leave the islands neutral, rather in the same way as Britain and France had. What a different world we might be living in today had that happened! But in many ways a more interesting ‘what if’ concerns the possibility of the Kingdom having become an incorporated territory. Could Hawaii have become a US State with a Monarch? By the way, there was loads of material that I uncovered that I obviously had to leave out. With the videos I gave to try to develop a specific story arc that is hopefully easy to follow for people who don’t know much, or anything about the topic, but I actually had about three different ways to tell this story. One if the other approaches I took was to look at how Britain’s relationship evolved. It actually tried to stop Hawaii from getting close to the US. There were some wonderful exchanges. Interestingly, one of the arguments the British adopted was that the US was actually far worse than the British at looking after their ‘natives’. In 1854, as the idea of annexation was being seriously explored, the British consul actually managed to help kill off the idea by noting that Hawaii’s geographical position meant that it would be in the US South and so the native Hawaiians could find themselves enslaved! I put a link to an article in the description. (I don’t know if you have access to an academic library, but it is well worth a read.) Anyway, as you can imagine, there were so many elements I had to leave out. And many more I’d like to follow up further. For example, I find the idea if incorporation vs unincorporation interesting. I’d really like to look into it in more detail.
@TheLocalLt as an American, I assume you also realize that Hawaii, being a colonial possession of the United States that was never legitimately annexed by Treaty or otherwise permanently conquered in compliance with the Constitution or international law, is a fraud perpetrated upon the American People by their own government. This issue was raised by the Senate, which refused to ratify a treaty of annexation, as evidenced by the Congressional Record. Every penny of federal funds intended for U.S. States and instead given to the people of Hawaii is indeed theft from the American public. Although Hawaii’s annexation and admission as a State is a political question conveniently not subject to review by U.S. courts, the fraud upon honest American taxpayers cannot be ignored forever. Hawaii’s fraudulent statehood also allows an otherwise foreign country to participate in U.S. domestic affairs and provides the Democratic Party with undue influence in U.S. politics. Furthermore, Hawaii is a colony in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Indeed it may pretend to be part of the United States but it never was and could never be America. Whether Hawaii is "better off" as part of the United States has no bearing on whether Americans ought to be defrauded by their own government in collusion with foreign conspirators. An honest American President would simply put an end to the lie once and for all - and every U.S. President already has the power to do it.
@@JamesKerLindsay not criticizing the video at all I should have said at the start it was another great one. And that’s a great story, honestly Hawaii would have been better off as a British possession at the time, as long as it was as a protectorate where the monarchy remained, but today I think Hawaii as a state is better than it would be as independent, (assuming the British would have left by now). The British take on having a moral claim to the Islands is amusing; in most countries, even during the most depraved regimes in history, it seems most people, especially those in the military, always view their own country as self-righteous. I’m sure that my comment is exactly reflective of that truth I could make the pushback to their argument that slaveholding plantations in newer parts of the colonial American South such as British Georgia and British Carolina was basically created as extension of the Scottish and English slaveholding plantations in British Jamaica. But of course the real reality is that slavery has a long history among many powers and cultures and no one is to “blame” for it, we should just be glad we live in this lucky time when it is largely gone (well except in North Korea and Communist China - but even that’s not classical slavery, that’s “people’s democratic” slavery)
The Hawaiian Kingdom was recognized with a Treaty of Neutrality. It was also recognized as an Independent Sovereign Nation State so International laws apply and A Treaty of Annexation, Cession or Peace was necessary for any country to take over Hawaii. The Hawaiian Kingdom's GOVERNMENT was illegally overthrown not its Country and it STILL IS TODAY. See U.S. Public Law 103-150, the Apology Resolution. The Hague & Geneva Conventions IV must be applied during occupation. The confusion comes because the U.S.'s lie was so good and the lack of people's understanding in international laws allowed the occupation to APPEAR lawful. Why apologize for raping and pillaging if you're not going to right the wrong? Queen Lili'u and the Hawaiian people NEVER agreed to give up their Sovereignty or agree to a Nation within a Nation. Hawaiians are NOT Native Americans! We Love our Native American brothers and sisters but they did not have their own Independent recognition, government, palace and were never part of the Family of Nations, as Hawai'i was and still IS but under ILLEGAL, BELLIGERENT, PROLONGED AND CONTINUED OCCUPATION by the United States. The lie was a good one! The U.S. and State of Hawaii Corporations fooled the whole world, but 128 years is as much as their going to get. Restitutions are due not only to all Native Subjects and Nationals but to everyone that were tricked into purchasing a "Piece of Paradise" and believing that they were born, married, divorced or died in the U.S. All legal Certificates in Hawai'i since January 17, 1893 have been falsified! Now think of the ramifications of that! All lands sold were the properties of the original Royal Patent and Land Commission Awardees in PERPETUITY! All State Notary Publics and RegIstrars are INSURGENTS! Now take a moment to take that ALL in. How much does the U.S. owe you and your family and friends for this fraud and corruption?
All private and public lands are subject to the right of eminent domain by the government in power. There is no such thing as perpetuity when it comes to property ownership because sovereignty can override it for the common good. A simple amendment to the Hawaiian constitution is all that is needed. Given that a majority of Hawaiians have had little to no land even before 1893 is proof that massive land reform would be a welcome change.
@@soundmind9772 but who are the Hawaiians that would be making the changes to the Constitution and which Constitution? There are so many kanaka that have different opinions regarding that very questions. Also, the TRUE titles to all our lands are being held by foreigners. We need to be given back what is rightfully our Nation's property. Most of our people don't even have a clue as to who is holding our Kingdom's true titles and our gold. We are the richest country in the world, we have no debt and many countries know this fact.
@@raylene1921 the changes would be made by the duly elected legislature and the amended constitution would replace all previous constitutions so it wouldn't really matter which constitution was being amended. However, a legitimate election must necessarily include all registered Hawaiian Kingdom voters who are descendants of kanaka maoli and should also include any who wish to register to vote who are descendants of those non-kanaka born or naturalized in Hawaii prior to 1898. It's best if a law were passed to simply abolish all existing land titles and reissue new titles to self-organized autonomous collectives that resemble ahupua'a villages or similar to a homeowners association. People should have the freedom to move between collectives with permission from their new collective. We don't need gold just our land is enough. If we can get additional land as reparations that would be even better. Technology and training are also valuable, as well as rare earth materials.
@@soundmind9772 I concur! The ea-ducation will take time so that those that chose to be Hawaiian Kingdom Subjects/Nationals are well informed and given full disclosure prior to registering to call Hawai'i home. This also takes development of a research program that can perform each person's mo'okuauhau to prove if they qualify to make the choice. All lands in Hawai'i have been claimed and liened in commerce and the public record by James Akahi Nui in the early 2000's. All kanaka will be able to register to be stewards, caretakers and guardians of the lands and pass it down to their future generations until it no longer can be. At this point, the Kingdom would distribute it to another kanaka to do the same. The lands will never be sold again. Too much pilikia has occurred because of greed and fortune. We must not allow that to happen again. As far as our Kingdom gold that our Mo'i transferred to keep safe, it will be returned to the Kingdom.
@@raylene1921 Mahalo. Unfortunately we are a failed State and have had no legitimately elected leaders since 1893, nor have we had any illegitimate leadership who have successfully seized control over our national territory other than the U.S. government and its political subdivisions. Therefore, the United States, under the doctrine of necessity, will and should continue to serve as the de facto government for as long as a legitimate replacement does not challenge United States jurisdiction. Foreign governments can also take the initiative to hold the United States accountable for their actions, but these foreign governments are under no obligation to do so unless and until either a successor Hawaiian government is formed and A) recognized as a government in exile on FOREIGN soil OR B) successfully gains physical control over some earthly territory that can sustain a human population. National homeland territory would be best but technically a successor Hawaiian government could literally occupy ANY territory ANYWHERE and seek recognition from there, even some random location such as Guam or Pitcairn island. There are strategic reasons why an interim Hawaiian government would choose one specific physical location to occupy over another and it would be wise to collaborate with at least one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council for obvious reasons. However, NOTHING will happen in our favor automatically. It requires extreme initiative to organize an effective election and/or gain actual control over territory. Not one of the actors claiming to represent the Hawaiian People are attempting to do either of these things. They are too busy working to preserve the internal power structure that has controlled things in Hawaii since before 1893. Now that the United States is no longer needed, the Hawaii oligarchy is trying to figure out how to break away without losing control of Hawaii's resources ("ceded" lands, etc.). Good luck with that. A change gonna come.
3 possible reasons..... #1 U.S. military was a superior military force and defeat was certain. #2 Queen was paid off. #3 Queen thought she was being paid off but was tricked instead. Either way, the Queen knew that annexation would fail because Americans would reject the Hawaiian people. She was 100% correct. Thus annexation never happened. Hawaii was captured instead and remains occupied until today.
@@soundmind9772 The #1 wouldn’t really matter if they had the will to fight. People are willing to fight if it is something they believe in. Vietnam and Afghanistan.
@@justinkase5260 the difference with Vietnam and Afghanistan is that defeat was not certain. Same for the Philippines and Cuba. Hawaiians were not so dumb to risk life when yielding was the obviously better choice. Pride is foolish when there are better alternatives than death. Note that yielding is not the same thing as signing a treaty of annexation. Thus, the right to restoration of Hawaiian independence has been preserved without bloodshed. This right need not be exercised, but will be available to the Hawaiian People in perpetuity.
Precisely. Just like Hong Kong was occupied by Great Britain, Macao and Goa were occupied by Portugal, and Morocco was occupied by France and is still occupied by Spain. Like Hawaii, American Samoa is part of the Hawaiian-Samoan political union formed in the 19th century that is also still occupied by the United States. Note that Hawaii itself was united via colonialism because King Kamehameha colonized separate Kingdoms in Maui, Oahu and Kauai and no peace treaties were ever signed to conclude any Hawaiian wars. Once Hawaii regains its independence from the United States, much of the Hawaiian territory will be subject to decolonization procedures to allow the Peoples of their respective island Kingdoms to exercise their rights of self-determination.
Since the colony of Hawaii was established by Great Britain in 1843, Hawaii became ripe for decolonization in 2019 following the precedent set by the American colonies (established in 1607 and abolished by the Treaty of Paris of 1783). 'ONIPA'A KAKOU! “If that Nation throws off the yoke itself and sets itself at liberty, it re-enters into the enjoyment of all its rights and regains its former position; and it is not for other Nations to decide whether it has released itself from a lawful authority or has broken its chains.” -The Law of Nations (Vattel).
Continued U.S. occupation of Hawaii can be considered illegal under international law. The US annexed Hawaii basis an act of the US Congress, which is a US domestic law. Since Hawaii was an internationally recognized independent nation it would require an international treaty between the Kingdom of Hawaii and the USA to make the annexation legal. But since the USA is a major power nobody, including the "western democracies", dares to challenge the USA occupation. Seems might makes right.
Of course it's illegal. Unfortunately Hawaii was played by the global elite and most nations were in collusion from the beginning. In true mafia style, Hawaii was "made" so she could be exploited by the "family" and once they gained her trust they simply took over her turf. Corporations were used to disguise the various foreign shareholders from many different countries, not just the United States. This has happened so many times to other nations since then.
Note that the United States has never claimed to have conquered Hawaii. Even if that claim were to be asserted, I am unaware of any examples of a once-recognized sovereign and independent State that was irreversibly extinguished or its territory annexed via conquest in the absence of a treaty unless the nation was entirely subdued, or in case it was destroyed and ceased to exist as the result of war. See United States v. Huckabee, 83 US 414 (1873). No treaty exists in the case of the annexation of Hawaii by the United States, nor has conquest been asserted. Thus, just as the Independent State of the Congo resumed independence again as the Republic of Congo, just as Morocco resumed independence after French and Spanish occupation, and just as Goa was reclaimed from Portugal by India, Hawaii's annexation is reversible. This right would also apply to the Ryukyu Islands, Hyderabad, Junagarh and disputed territories claimed by Morocco such as Western Sahara, Ceuta and Melilla. Hawaii may be the only member of the Family of Nations with such an extensive history of international recognition and diplomatic relations to be deprived of its independence without a treaty of cession and without having lost any war. Even where conquest has indeed been confirmed by treaty, as it was with Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Macau, Tahiti, or more recently with Korea, the conquering state can still be compelled to reverse their conquest. Conceivably this would also apply to Texas and much of the United States that was acquired via treaties with Indian tribes. Rather than a case of permanent conquest, the occupation of Hawaii is a case of temporary acquiescence for the sake of preventing bloodshed and maintaining peace and order in the wake of an illegal usurpation of governmental authority. Even the United States has opened the door to the possibility of resuming international relations with Hawaii by issuing a formal apology.
@@The.Hawaiian.Kingdom it's not a treaty of cession because a treaty does not exist at all, regardless of what kind of treaty. Public Law 103-150 is indeed an apology as well as an admission of guilt, irrespective of whether you think it should have apologized for something other than what was apologized for or whether it admits what you think it should admit. For example someone can burn your house down and kill your dog and apologize for and admit to killing your dog while bragging to their friends about burning your house down. That's not empty. It's not gonna help you win friends, but it's not empty.
@@onocoffee "Then why have we not, if we need a coaling station in the Hawaiian Islands now, if we have needed it so badly as the Senator states, had a treaty to give us one in Honolulu Harbor before the war began? Mr. Dole would be very willing to enter into any kind of treaty with us. But the matter has been held up for the purpose of attempting to create a necessity, and we are asked in the presence of necessity to do that which a sane man under ordinary circumstances would not think of doing, this to establish a precedent in order to enable our speculative friends in various parts of the world to argue that we ought to annex all the barbarian tribes we may conquer in this war." -U.S. SENATE. TUESDAY, May 31, 1898. WAR-REVENUE BILL, during the Spanish American War.
Unfortunately, the U.S. wanted to emulate Europe in the 19th Century and decided to do its own colonizing (Cuba, Hawaii, the Philippines) as well. This started us down the path of interfering in the business of other nations and its only gotten worse over time. Twenty years in Afghanistan - for what??!!
Wrong Hawaii is not part of americas fraud. There is no treaty of annexation and no treaty of peace between the 2 nation states. A joint resolution of a foreign country is illegal and a war crime. The kanaka maoli is the original people that god my father made from the dirt of ko Hawaii pae aina.
Hawaii is already independent, free and prosperous when you think about it. The multi-ethnic people of Hawaii today enjoy democracy, freedom to vote, unlimited travel outside the country, fair rule of law, Liberty, free speech and the right to succeed in life, own a business, go to University etc. Just like every other American. We are free to practise any religion of our choosing and we have a Governor that looks after the people. Also we are protected by the only Superpower - the USA. This is TRUE individual self-determination that some Hawaiians seek and what the US constitution offers. What more can we ask for? Nobody in the 21st century wants Hawaii to return back to the backward eras of Kings and Queens, racism, bigotry, xenophobia, tribalism and human sacrifices C'mon lol
Thanks. I’m not sure it would still have human sacrifice in the 21st century, to be honest. :-) Seriously though, I understand that it is free and prosperous. But it is also important to understand that it has nevertheless been the victim of a history injustice. There was a very good reason why the US government apologised for its actions. It really was an act of appalling colonialism; however one might like to call it. In this case though, Hawaii was never given the choice about its future. It was just incorporated into the US. Now, I accept that this may have been what people wanted. But, again, the whole demographic make up of the territory had changed. Would this have been what the people would have wanted if they had never been annexed and the population remained as it was? We’ll never know. But it is important to understand and recognise what happened, and the lasting consequences of those actions - even if you do think that the outcome is broadly beneficial. The problem is that there is a very five line between this and a colonial mentality that says, “It’s fine what we do as it’s really in their interest, even if they don’t know it.”
@@JamesKerLindsay Thanks for the thoughtful response, and I agree we may never know how Hawaii might have turned out had it gained full independence back then. Society might became better than today (unlikely, unless there's a better system than Liberal Democracy that we don't know of), or worse which is very possible. It might even end up like North Korea - a fully sovereign nation with "self determination" for the party, but not for the people. We really have to re-define what self-determination means.. self determination for the government or the citizens?
We can ask for as much as we want. We can ask for equality, a means of subsistence for all, freedom to control our own borders, freedom to treaty with other nations, freedom of expropriation, freedom to disregard the U.S. constitution, freedom from alien domination, freedom to sleep in public spaces without fear of harassment, food sovereignty, free healthcare, free education taught in the Hawaiian language. How would Americans feel if they had to pledge allegiance to the flag of the People's Republic of China, if American schools taught everything in Chinese and if all American officials took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the People's Republic of China? Clearly alien domination would not fly in America just because millions of Chinese people are ok under Chinese rule. Why should Hawaiians be ok with alien domination just because millions of Americans are ok under American rule?
@@bruceli9094 The US Supreme Court ruled that states cannot secede, presumably including Hawaii. Going for independence would require a constitutional amendment effectively abolishing the "perpetual union" that is America. American colonialism stripped Hawaii of its identity, and that needs redress. Working towards that would prove more fruitful than seeking full sovereignty and risk being exploited by other Great Powers nearby...
@@charlesmadre5568 The preclusion to an independent Hawaii has more to do with a lack of political will because the U.S. is Hawaii's loyal servant from the perspective of the Hawaii oligarchs. Neither secession nor constitutional amendment is necessary for independence because the U.S. government can simply add some random territory to the State of Hawaii (such as Wake atoll) and subsequently recognize a sovereign Hawaiian government and then radically redefine the boundaries of the State of Hawaii in response to U.S. Public Law 103-150, thereby returning the original territory to the sovereign Hawaiian government pursuant to Jones v. United States 137 US 202 (1890). The resulting State of Hawaii would consist only of Wake atoll. Voila!
Fascinating story, thanks for telling it! As another video idea, maybe you could talk about how the colonial empires in the Americas and then the US treated the indigenous populations. Is it true they were sometimes treated like independent states that could be made treaties with? Or what exactly entities like the Cherokee Nation were and still are?
9:51 If Hawaii already attained a "full measure of self-government" as evidenced by international recognition and numerous treaties with other countries, including the United States, then why did the United States include Hawaii on its list of territories whose Peoples had "not yet attained a full measure of self-government" in accordance with Chapter IX of the Charter of the newly established United Nations? Was Kamehameha used by the United States as a proxy to conquer and colonize the Hawaiian People and deprive them of their right to self determination? The Apology Resolution (Pub. Law 103-150) of November 23, 1993 would suggest as much.
Because it had that full self-government before it was removed by the United States and effectively became a colony. As of Kamehameha, his main interaction was with the British, not the US. And, as I mentioned, while he would have been willing to see Hawaii become a protectorate, Britain didn’t think it was necessary. Of course, history could have been very different if it had. Hawaii might have remained in British hands until. WWII. And while Japan might still have invaded, as they did with Singapore, at the end of the War it would have had its sovereignty restored.
@@JamesKerLindsay I love your answer! Thank you! Are you aware of any other country that attained full self-government prior to being subsequently reduced to a colony and thus placed on the UN list of non self-governing territories? Also, in light of the 1893 letter from President Cleveland to Congress or the more recent 1993 Apology Resolution, could Hawaii be reinscribed on the list like French Polynesia? Although incorporation of Hawaii may technically be irreversible under U.S. law (absent consent from all 50 States or revolution), the boundaries of the State of Hawaii are certainly negotiable as a matter of international and U.S. law to be settled by treaty and/or an act of Congress or the executive branch of the United States. See Jones v. United States, 137 U.S. 202 (1890). Restoring independence to even a teeny tiny sliver of the original Hawaiian territory would be a game changer for Hawaiian patriots and quite useful to influential U.S. corporations (and military) seeking a convenient jurisdiction where U.S. law no longer applies.
Hawaiians have full US citizenship and representation as much as any other state. They would have been a conquered people by a major power without any doubt.
It’s important to realize that Hawaii is no longer an ethnostate caste based monarchy, there is a significant Asian-American and White-American population on the islands, which outnumber the native Hawaiians. The majority of Hawaiians (including native Hawaiians) are patriotic Americans, and consider themselves as such. An independent Hawaii would entail disenfranchising thousands of people who currently do not even entertain such an idea, let alone support it. Also realize that secession is wholly illegal in the US (at least for states not territories), remember there was a whole war fought over it, so as soon as Hawaii became a state independence become untenable.
@@matt1sullivan318 Disenfranchising thousands of people is not incompatible with U.S. policy, and yet reaffirming Hawaiian independence need not disenfranchise anyone. U.S. citizens and former U.S. citizens thrive perfectly well in other English-speaking former colonies (i.e. Hong Kong, Singapore, UAE, Malaysia, Philippines, etc.). Beyond that, although Hawaii is a democracy, it has been ruled by a minority elite for more than two centuries and We the People have little say, regardless of the ethnicity of the rulers of the day or the general population. As for the illegality of secession, it doesn't apply to Hawaii because the U.S. State of Hawaii will likely remain. The difference will be that its territory will be redefined in accordance with a future treaty negotiated between the U.S. and a recognized Most Serene Hawaiian Nation-State. This would be similar to the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842 with Great Britain or the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848 with Mexico, neither of which resulted in secession, but the U.S. did in fact return INCORPORATED territory to a preexisting sovereign in each case. Also, do not forget Midway Atoll, which was never incorporated, but is certainly part of the Hawaiian Nation-State since July 5, 1859 (acknowledged in the U.S. Congressional Record, despite U.S. occupation since August 28, 1867 and misinformation promoted on the internet). Recognizing the Philippines as a precedent, Midway is ripe for independence from the United States.
Hawaii sovereignty was doom. A small free nation surrounded by larger powers. If the US did annexed Hawaii in 1893, Japan would have. To show the importance of Hawaii location Japan was willing to fight the US in 1895 for it, but in 1895 there was a rebellions in Taiwan and the military needed to put down the rebellion.
Japan was too weak to annex Hawaii, which was protected by Western powers that were completely offended by the idea of an Asian country attempting to colonize another country. Japan learned a valuable lesson and would not dare attempt such a thing ever again. Western powers allowed Japan to keep Okinawa as a colony on the condition that the United States could use it however it pleased. Another point is that Hawaiian rulers saw American immigrants as their equals but that was not the case with Japanese immigrants to Hawaii, who were imported as cheap labor. Hawaiians were inclined to respect American authority but it would not have been the same if Japanese rule were forced upon Hawaii. Kanaka would snap under such conditions.
Hawaii will never leave the United States, the native Hawaiians are nothing but a super minority hovering less than 10%. Hawaii would hold a vote and it would overwhelming be pro union. The only way I can see this happening in a fantasy scenario where the "Americans" come back to the mainland and the natives are given the vote, and the granted... Each one is crazier than the last.
Thanks so much. I don’t think there is any any realistic prospect of independence now, I agree. But it’s interesting to consider the way it was incorporated into the USA.
You do realize that Hawaii has always been ruled by a minority don't you? The same is true for America and the world. All empires eventually fall and Hawaii will leave the United States when it gets a better deal from another country.
@@stepanovtakiov9311 People do critique Japan for that. The truth is, political literacy is so low nowadays that protecting a native population is seen as fascist.
Yes, there was. It was clearly annexation by any serious understanding of the term. And Congress apologised for what happened. It would not have done so unless it understood that Hawaii's entry into the union was not done in a way that met the standards of decency and fairness. I know the United States likes to see itself as different from other colonial powers, but it too has a rather dark past.
@@JamesKerLindsay we were the first non European admitted in to the Family of nations under great Brittain. That's where our first king got his weapons to unite all the islands under a single rule. Our king joined the British army and that's why we have the union Jack on our flag.
@@JamesKerLindsay Inasmuch as Belgium was annexed by Germany in 1914, yes the Hawaiian Islands were annexed by the United States on August 12, 1898 during the Spanish American War. Thus, the operative date of annexation is August 12, 1898, which is the date of capture and possession rather than the date of the internationally-irrelevant Newlands Resolution passed by Congress on July 7, 1898. As for the apology resolution, this is enabling legislation to urge the President to take action in compliance with relevant international law and to grant the Executive branch carte blanche authority to "acknowledge the ramifications" of U.S. meddling in Hawaiian affairs. This may include, without limitation, restoration of Hawaiian independence, withdrawal of U.S. jurisdiction and sovereignty from all or any portion of disputed Hawaiian territory, cession of ADDITIONAL territory as redress and/or indemnity, including American Samoa, Guam, Wake, Midway, etc. While this may result in the reduction of the SIZE of the State of Hawaii, this territorial adjustment would not necessarily remove the State of Hawaii from the Union.
Well said! Do you think Somaliland should recognize both China and Taiwan as a way to demonstrate that recognition is the prerogative of sovereign states and that other countries should not succumb to peer pressure and threats?
@@JamesKerLindsay He may be referring to your false claim that the United States formally annexed Hawaii. It would be more accurate to say "the United States purported to annex the Hawaiian Islands but instead only took possession by peaceful conquest." As an expert in international law, surely you must concede that the American view of international law in 1898 did not permit permanent conquest of a neutral nation in the absence of a treaty. See Henry W. Halleck, International Law 812 (1861) ("So far as neutrals are concerned, it belongs to the conquering State, but does not form a part of it. It is held by the right of possession and not by complete title, and is therefore subject to the rights of postliminy."). The excuse to capture the Hawaiian Islands as a necessity of war was also bogus because Spain had already secretly negotiated the terms of its subsequent surrender to take place the following day immediately after the fake battle of Manilla. The outcome of the Spanish American War had everything to do with white supremacy and the white leaders of the United States succeeding to the white leaders of Spanish colonies, the Hawaiian Islands and even Samoa because none of the white powers were willing to allow non-white Peoples (referred to by U.S. Senators as "barbarian tribes") to enjoy equal sovereignty with whites. The possession of the Hawaiian Islands masquerading as an annexation was a test to see if and how long the United States could get away with it. The U.S. apology is merely lip service and meaningless without action.
An apology is not enough. I believe it more appropriate for the USA to restore the monarchy of the Kingdom of Hawaii as it was and allow the native Hawaiians (true Hawaiians of at least 1/4 blood) ONLY to vote their choice for the future of Hawaii including expelling any foreigners which have settled there in the last century. This would partially restore the Hawaiian rights and lead to reparations by the USA for this travesty of selfish American foreign intrigue. It should be an independent kingdom.
Unfortunately, this can’t be rolled back now. Even by the end of the nineteenth century the demographic changes had rendered the native Hawaiians a minority. But it is a fascinating ‘what if’ of history. Would the USA have entered WWII if Hawaii had still been independent? I wonder if Japan and US might have struck an agreement to keep it neutral, effectively putting it off limits to them both and Britain and France did a century earlier, and as Switzerland was in Europe during WWII. The other question is what would have happened if it had joined the US as a monarchy, as was being explored in 1854. Would be today have a US state with a king or queen. It’s an interesting thought!
@@JamesKerLindsay I still think the USA has no business usurping the powers of another people. There is a Hawaiian Island, Niihau, with only native Hawaiians allowed to live on it. I think it is possible to restore a monarchy there and expand the country as foreigners who came in the last 150 years are relocated in the USA Hawaiians retake their patrimony and reparations are paid to the native Hawaiian people by the USA. This would be justice. This example could be also applied to other American territories in the Pacific such as American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas.
@@JamesKerLindsay Please anyone feel free to correct and/or criticize my comments. It is not correct to say that this can’t be rolled back. The reality is that Hawaii continues to have obligations to its people and the international community that it must be held accountable for (like other failed States such as Somalia). Despite efforts by the United States to assume Hawaii’s Kuleana (responsibility), the legal international personality of Hawaii as recognized by Great Britain and France in 1843 was not and could not have been extinguished based on actual historical events and relevant international law. James, in your video ruclips.net/video/vkhWoFirV7A/видео.html entitled “What is Self-Determination? | The most misunderstood idea in international relations” you state (from 5:11 to 5:45) that “[i]n effect, two distinct forms of self-determination now emerged. One of these leads to independence, the other to self-rule within a state. The form that leads to independence is usually known as external self-determination. However this is understood to apply only to cases of alien subjugation. Specifically this is understood to mean cases of colonialism, or territories under foreign military occupation. Importantly colonialism in this context was understood to refer to overseas holdings, what is sometimes been called ‘saltwater colonialism’.” Hawaii is indeed a case of alien subjugation, military occupation and saltwater colonialism for purposes of applying the principle of self-determination. The argument that Hawaii “lost” its right to external self determination when it allegedly became a U.S. state fails on the basis that Hawaii previously achieved independence (recognized in 1843) and its legal personality was never extinguished under relevant international law - despite being a failed State (similar to Somalia). Hawaii is a special case of State failure where no competent government presently exists, the State is no longer being formally acknowledged by other nations and its territorial boundaries are not presently being respected. This becomes embarrassingly obvious when examining the political status of anomalies such as the Midway Islands, which were admitted in the Congressional Record to have been legitimately claimed by and as part of the Hawaiian Kingdom on July 5, 1859, yet later occupied by U.S. military forces on August 28, 1867 but never formally incorporated into the United States in accordance with U.S. or international law. Unlike many other U.S. territorial possessions, Midway was never claimed under the Guano Islands Act (11 Stat. 119, enacted August 18, 1856, codified at 48 U.S.C. ch. 8 §§ 1411-1419) as mistakenly promoted on the internet and, like Johnston Atoll and Palmyra Atoll, it was expressly excluded from annexation and statehood. These territorial anomalies also raise issues with respect to the apparent contradictions that arise when attempting to reconcile the principle of territorial integrity with distinctions made by U.S. courts between incorporated and unincorporated territory. Thus, due to the advancement of international law, it is too late to “incorporate” Midway into the United States (via joint resolution or otherwise), which is as much a colonial possession of the United States as the Chagos Islands are to Great Britain. Therefore, Midway is presently occupied Hawaiian territory, just as it was when this U.S. colonial possession was strategically attacked by Japan in 1941 and again in 1942, unless and until officially disclaimed via Treaty between recognized sovereigns. Moreover, due to the principle of territorial integrity, the rest of the Hawaiian Islands Archipelago, although deemed “incorporated” under U.S. law, cannot be separated from the whole and must inevitably be reunited with the remaining “unincorporated” Hawaiian territory such as Midway. Truth be told, the French Frigate Shoals appears to be the only territory in the U.S. State of Hawaii that was legitimately claimed by the United States (under the doctrine of discovery and pursuant to the Guano Islands Act). Thus the 50th U.S. state, if any, ought to be limited to that area alone.
If Hawaii not been annexed by the United States, do you think it would still be an independent Kingdom and a member of the UN today?
Yes I do
yes i think that would be quite possible.
I would like if you have the time to read a comment of mine in response to your own comment on the video (Was KOSOVO’s Declaration of INDEPENDENCE legal? Is it a STATE?)
I would be interested in your opinion, thank you in advance for this.
Hawaii would have been about as independent as the rest of the tiny islands of the Pacific that is to say not at all.
@@AhmetwithaT In any case it would be much more than it is today.
@@AhmetwithaT I can see that argument. But then again I suspect it might have been a bit different. It really held an interesting strategic location. Also, the islands are not as small or as dispersed as the South Pacific Islands. Granted, it would not have been a superpower, but I suspect it could have carved out a rather nice, if not prosperous, place for itself.
They didn't tell this story in my US history classes. Thank you for the great video!
Thank you so much. I was really hoping that some viewers from the US and Hawaii would comment. I did wonder how much if this is generally known in the US, and how the story might be taught at schools - if at all.
@@JamesKerLindsay I think "mainlanders" generally know very little about how Hawaii came to be part of the US. I would guess Hawaiians know more but I am curious also. I know there is a small pro-independence movement in Hawaii as well!
@zdvickery, our school system pushes propaganda, and our "democracy" is fake.
Yes they did.
As a Tongan person this gives me perpetual rage, I hate how all the Micronesian islands can have their independence simply because they were taken at the end of WW2 while the Kingdom of Hawai’i was outright illegally occupied and somehow deemed more justified because it was in the 1800’s and because native Hawaiians have become a minority group in their own country. #PolynesianSolidarity
Thanks Selwyn. It was such a sad story to look into. I remember reading years ago about Hawaii and thinking how this was a story of annexation that is now so rarely discussed. I had wanted to look into it in more detail and do a video on it for ages. There was a lot of material I couldn’t include. But it was one of those cases where I really felt a huge injustice has been perpetrated. But there were some positive elements. I know it didn’t fix what happened, but President Cleveland’s statement was a rather touching statement. And the fact that Congress apologised for the US actions is also a rare example of a country owning up to a fundamental injustice and saying sorry. It would be nice if more could have the decency to at least admit wrong doing. It doesn’t reverse what happened. But it does acknowledge that something deeply wrong happened.
@@JamesKerLindsay Please anyone feel free to correct and/or criticize my comments.
The annexation (and eventual statehood) of Hawaii was not only an injustice against Hawaiian natives and Hawaiian nationals, but it was also - and perhaps more notably - a fraud perpetrated against the People of the United States by their own government. A joint resolution annexing Hawaii was indeed legally binding on the People of the United States, but no treaty was ever made with another sovereign and approved with the advice and consent of the Senate as required by international law AND the U.S. Constitution to expand U.S. territory (even the dispute over Texas was eventually settled by the Treaty of Hidalgo Guadalupe). Hawaii was simply taken by conquest, beginning with Midway Atoll on August 28, 1867. Hence the significance of the later August 12, 1898 occupation date applicable to relevant U.S. law rather than the July 7, 1898 date of the U.S. Joint Resolution - which is unlike the dates relevant to other territorial claims pursuant to U.S. treaties. Indeed the constitutionality and extraterritorial effect of Hawaii’s annexation was hotly debated by the Senate on July 3, 1898 (31 Cong. Rec. 6635) and even questioned by the U.S. Attorney General Douglas Kmiec in a legal opinion written in 1988. But alas, as explained by former Senator John Coit Spooner during a Senate hearing on February 28, 1900, the decision to annex Hawaii was “a political question, not subject to review by the courts.” (33 Cong. Rec. 2391). To illustrate the effect of this doctrine, in Jones v. United States, 137 U.S. 202 (1890) the U.S. Supreme Court held as follows:
“Who is the sovereign, de jure or de facto, of a territory is not a judicial, but a political, question, the determination of which by the legislative and executive departments of any government conclusively binds the judges, as well as all other officers, citizens, and subjects of that government.” Id.
It further held:
“All courts of justice are bound to take judicial notice of the territorial extent of the jurisdiction exercised by the government whose laws they administer, or of its recognition or denial of the sovereignty of a foreign power, as appearing from the public acts of the legislature and executive, although those acts are not formally put in evidence, nor in accord with the pleadings.” Id.
Thus the decision to annex, regardless of whether or not it complies with international law and/or the U.S. Constitution with respect to the extraterritorial effect of a joint resolution, evades checks and balances and its consequences are long lasting. For example, if Hawaii’s annexation was indeed unconstitutional and/or lacking extraterritorial effect, then Hawaii is technically a foreign country masquerading as a domestic entity and being allowed to participate in the political process of the United States. Moreover, it continues to unjustly inflate the influence of the Democratic Party over the federal legislative process.
Therefore, although birth in Hawaii indeed confers statutory U.S. citizenship and the right to vote in U.S. elections, representatives from Hawaii are no more entitled to involvement in the affairs of the U.S. Congress as are representatives from American Samoa, Guantanamo Bay or Navassa Island. Thus Hawaii’s influence in U.S. politics ought to be at least as offensive to Americans as election interference by Russia or any other foreign country.
As a Welsh man, seeing annexed to the USA which hass killed the Hawai'ian language and culture makes me very sad. Absolute tragedy.
11:28, Republican leaning Hawaii and Democrat leaning Alaska ? Things sure have changed in recent decades.
Absolutely! Interesting isn’t it!? I was actually waiting for someone to say that I’d made a mistake at that part. 😉
What's more staggering change than Racist Democrats and Black Liberator Republicans.
As a Welsh man, seeing annexed to the USA which has killed the Hawai'ian language and culture makes me very sad. Absolute tragedy. And at the same time the Americans cry when they say their culture and language (English) is under threat - absolutely no sense of irony.
Another very interesting video, James, and as usual so well explained! I had no knowledge of Hawaii's past. Thank you 👍
Thanks, Dano. It is a fascinating story, isn’t it? I remember reading about it years ago and wanting to look into it in more detail. Interestingly, there was a lot more I could have included, but obviously I was limited. For example, there was the time in 1854 that a first draft treaty of annexation was being considered and the British consul in Hawaii persuaded the Hawaiians to reject it as they would join the southern US and this could suddenly find themselves being enslaved. Anyway, I hope you are doing well.
@James Ker-Lindsay
Yes, interesting indeed - and even more so with that extra piece of information you gave above (which incidentally took place on a parallel timeline to our previous chat, namely, when Όθων was king of Greece 😉).
I often feel it sad to see, how much Europeans and their descendants have interfered in other cultures all over the globe.
Looking at the European map, there are several sovereign countries with a population similar to or below that of Hawaii, so from that aspect, they could exist as a sovereign country today.
@@lvoldum I completely agree. Interestingly, Britain did actually try to keep Hawaii independent after 1854, but by the end of the century, with fears growing about the rise of Germany, and the need for a closer relationship with the US, it simply gave up.
@James Ker-Lindsay
Yes, especially Kaiser Wilhelm II was not one to joke with...
The 1800s certainly contain interesting history. As an example, I find the Empire of Brazil particularly interesting - a part of a kingdom breaking free (by unilateral secession - no UN to disapprove then 😉), and a visionary Emperor (Dom Pedro II - his father wasn't worth much) developing the country socially , democratically, and industrially, abolishing slavery, always with the greater good of the people in mind, but sadly dethroned through a military coup.
Perhaps you already know this, but the present Brazilian flag's green colour is the Portuguese Royal House of Bragança, and the yellow lozenge is the House of Habsburg (the first Empress was Maria Leopoldina of Austria).
@@JamesKerLindsay have you read U.N. councilor Alfred Dezayas's memorandum concerning Native Hawaiians and our issues?
Highly enlightening as ever and a subject not often covered. Thank you
Thank you! It was such an interesting issue to explore.
@@JamesKerLindsay I'm looking forward to watching your video on West Papua and obtaining an objective view on the subject
I did not expect anything less on the subject. Another well-documented video based on true historical facts.
Excellent
Fun Fact: Today and basically since their Statehoods Hawaii has been heavly Democratic and Alaska has been heavily Republican, meaning what they ecxpected in the 50's completely fliped on its head
Indeed! It is so interesting how they have flipped. It just seems so strange now to think of a Democrat Alaska and a Republican Hawaii!
@@JamesKerLindsay Hawaii has a strong Asian culture, which typically values Conservatism.
@@bruceli9094 not racist American conservatism tho 😉
@@kobainreid85 famously non racist Asians.
James can you make a video on how the UN became so weak? For example if the UN in the cold war said to a country to decolonize a territory, the country would decolonize it. Now the UN does not have any power on countries such as the US, France and the UK.
It wasn't the UN telling countries to decolonize, it was the US using the moniker of UN to destroy its competitors.
The UN never had this power, large-scale decolonization didn’t happen until it became clear that anti-colonial movements were often Communist in nature, that was 15-20 years after the UN told the world to decolonize
Seriously? You use 3 western democracies as your examples of your point? Allow me to fix your last sentence: ".... now the U.N. does not have any power on countries such as Russia, China, or puppet states like Syria." There..... all fixed.
90% voter turnout of 150,000 with 133,000 for statehood. 1959 Hawaii Population was 622,000. That 133,000 represents 23% of the population - which is about all the white people in Hawaii.
The people of Hawaii, whether Native Hawaiians or other Local People, did not have a say in their destiny.
So basically America said "this is mine" and nobody felt like calling them on it.
Yep, sounds about right.
Wonderful video as usual. I didn't know that about Hawaii. Thanks for sharing
Thank you so much Farhan.
It is a big pity that hawaii lost its independence , it would be an independent
Kingdom most likely like tonga
Thanks. You are absolutely right. I know it might seem far fetched to think of an independent Kingdom of Hawaii, but you are absolutely right. There’s no reason why it couldn’t have been like Tonga. It is a very sad story. I’d long been fascinated in Hawaii’s story, but I really enjoyed researching this one in detail. There was so much I had to leave out. At one point, I thought of making it a two-parter.
I think the worst mistake that hawaii did was to ask the us to grant protectorate status that led hawaii eventually led to the overthrow of the monarchy and the gradual annexation of hawaii into the united states
Idk if it would necessarily be independent or if such a scenario would’ve been “better”. During WW2 had Hawaii not been a US territory with a significant American presence it most likely would’ve faced a brutal prolonged Japanese invasion and subsequent occupation, which probably would’ve lead to thousands of deaths. Then you can imagine an American invasion/bombing campaign kicking the Japanese out, and then another occupation by the US. Who knows if it would be independent after all of that? It’s an interesting scenario nonetheless.
@@awesomeboy4353 honestly Hawaii’s fate was sealed when Britain refused to make it a protectorate. On the surface Hawaii had a better arrangement, but in reality being an independent Kingdom made Hawaii vulnerable to manipulation of the American settlers that were already present, and whom would have likely accepted status as a British protectorate, so while Tonga lost its independence at the time, it retained the kingdom’s internal sovereignty allowing it to simply regain its independence as an already-existent kingdom when the British left.
@@matt1sullivan318, Imperialists ALWAYS come up with flimsy little excuses to rationalize their theft of other people's country (let me give you some examples): The Brits "had to" keep India, The Americans "had to" steal 50% of Mexico's land mass in the 1845 war, the Germans "had to" invade Russia in WWII, the Soviets "had to" steal China's Manchuria region in the closing days of WWII, The Americans "had to" attack Vietnam & install a puppet dictator regime in the south. Your post is as flimsy a fig leaf as any other.
Love your videos James! Next if you decide to post Thursday you should do a video on Sealand or something funny like that for April fools! 😂
Haha! Brilliant idea! I might just have to give that a thought. I did have one lined up though, but let me see. (The problem is finding the time to script. It depends on how my work week shapes up.) In the meantime, I hope all is well with you.
@@JamesKerLindsay Thank you! Yeah I am doing well. Just hoping the British government doesn't change its mind when it comes to reopening! I want to go do things rather than stay at home all day. (I live in the UK just like you I believe) Keep up the good work and don't overwork yourself. If you can't do it in time then don't. And in regards to scriptwriting, you wouldn't need to do it on Sealand if you wanted. Just something funny. I do know video making is very hard as I have a friend who does it. But just keep working hard and don't give up it's great to see you hit 15k subscribers! Just remember me when you get bigger!
We were taught a watered down version of this story in California
Thanks. Sadly, I think most Americans are taught a very sanitised version of the story.
@@JamesKerLindsay yeah it feels like you get the skeleton of the story dressed up to not ruffle feathers
This channel is a gem
Amazing video! Left a like 😁
Thank you so much! It really was such a fascinating and tragic story.
If Hawaii was not part of the US during the Second World War, there wouldn't have been the attack on Pearl Harbor. Japan would have more likely annexed Hawaii, as they did with most Micronesian and Polynesian islands. Hawaii being the center point of the Pacific, this could and would have given Japan more power over the region. And since annexing Hawaii wouldn't have been an attack on the United States, Japan may not have declared war on them.
Maybe I'm stretching this a bit far, but the world might have looked a lot different today if it weren't for the American annexation of Hawaii. The impact of what may seem of small historical events may have more significance than many of us think.
Anyway, this is just fun speculation. The possibilities of what could and could not have happened is endless, so I have absolutely no idea what would actually have happened if the United States did not annex Hawaii.
Thank you so much! That is a fascinating counter factual. And I suspect that you are right. The question is whether the US could have allowed Hawaii to fall to Japan, thus letting it control the entire Pacific. One wonders if there might have been agreement to keep it neutral, this actually preserving its independence. A sort of replication of the French and British decision a century earlier. It really is a fascinating ‘what if’, isn’t it!?
@@JamesKerLindsay ooo yes this (what if ’, isn’t it !?) makes the mind spin fast, looking for many possible versions, ooo yes this is exciting,
beside to your nice videos, there are many good commentators here, as far as I can tell, whether you agree with them or not, one point of view is always interesting, it is extremely addictive to see different perspectives on a topic.
The Japan would still have taken the US colony of Philippines so the war would still be declared.
Tamu Japan will still attack US because it's the US that was responsible for the economic blockade of steel supplies against Imperial Japan. Nevertheless it may still attempt to annexed the islands however this could also be untrue if Hawaiian monarchy either had an alliance with the Japanese or a recognized neutrality.
Question: what Polynesian and Micronesian islands did Japan annex? Also, aren’t Hawaii and Rapa Nui/Easter Island the most isolated islands in the Pacific? So I’m not sure if Hawaii is the centre point of the Pacific. But it would have been a good military tactic to try to annex Hawaii given its proximity to the US and thus base movements from there. Although, I’m not sure how easy that would have been. I’m sure the Japanese would’ve given it a good go. I’m just not sure the Hawaiians would’ve gone down that easy.
Just on time as usual, thanks again james 👍
Haha! Yes. Interestingly, RUclips has introduced a new checking system to make sure videos comply with regulations. It seemed to be taking ages. Because of the topics I cover - conflict, etc - I think it gets particularly nervous when I post!
The Hawaiian Islands is such a unique case because unlike other conquests during that time period, the Hawaiian Islands was internationally recognized as a neutral independent state--a fact which, legally speaking, preserved her continuity as a subject of international law at a time when it would have otherwise been permanently extinguished under similar circumstances. This allowed her identity as a state to endure not only a sham revolution involving foreign intervention by the United States in 1893, but also subsequent capture by the United States during the Spanish-American War. Her neutrality effectively allowed her to transform these conquests into mere belligerent occupation, which continues to exist today. This special right of neutral states was recognized by legal authorities, including the U.S. Supreme Court, as early as 1815 in the case of the British conquest of a colony of Denmark. "So far as neutrals are concerned, it belongs to the conquering State, but does not form a part of it. It is held by the right of possession and not by complete title, and is therefore subject to the rights of postliminy." Henry W. Halleck, International Law 812 (1861).
Note that Native Hawaiians are only a portion of the population of Hawaiian nationals entitled to resume the exercise of sovereignty over Hawaii. The Nation-State of the Hawaiian Islands is a Nation-State in continuity and member of the Family of Nations since 1843. Hawaiian ruling Monarchs were indeed only selected from the Native Hawaiian population before the illegal overthrow of the government in 1893, but the national population as a whole was and still is comprised of Native and non Native Hawaiians alike.
The Hawaiian government was indeed overthrown but the State was never extinguished. The sovereignty of the Hawaiian People has merely been suspended and their government has been in an extended period of interregnum - such as when a King dies without an heir. Thus the United States annexed Hawaii as a military necessity and it exercises sovereignty on behalf of the Hawaiian People under the doctrine of necessity until such time as their lawful Hawaiian government is reinstated and their independence is restored. However, this is not to say that the United States has legitimate authority over Hawaii because the United States and the State of Hawaii are most certainly illegitimate governments with respect to the Hawaiian Islands.
It is impossible for United States laws to have extraterritorial effect in a foreign State in the absence of a treaty, unconditional surrender or utter destruction of the State and Hawaii is no exception. Moreover, the fraudulent annexation of Hawaii by the United States was an unconstitutional fraud against the People of the United States that continues to be perpetuated by the Democratic Party to gain undue influence over U.S. politics. This fraud also allows federal spending on what is effectively a foreign country and allows foreign interference with U.S. domestic affairs. This fraud can and will be repealed.
Hawaii will not be set free through clever legal maneuvering or by "forcing" the United States to take corrective action. The people of Hawaii and the people of the United States, as well as the remaining people of the world must collectively support Hawaii's emancipation because it's the correct action and it's best for everyone. The weaponization of Hawaii as the most militarized place on earth has allowed the United States to establish and maintain a global empire and powerful sphere of influence at the expense of the rest of the world. By allowing Hawaii to remain weaponized and held captive by the United States, the entire world is responsible for the extreme levels of inequality that exists today. We should all accept our shared responsibility for allowing the privileged to exploit those most vulnerable. It's no different than standing idle while a parent abuses a defenseless child.
We are ending the 129 year occupation using international law. Repatriate with Occupied Forces Hawaii Army!
@@deoccupyhawaii6268 Occupation can be ended without repatriating with OFHA. Totally unnecessary process.
@@soundmind9772 oh really? Like how exactly? Do tell....I'll wait....
@@deoccupyhawaii6268 Whatever your process entails, just without the charade of repatriation as if it's part of the "science" of the law of nations. I'd be happy to get into a real discussion about the practical details of de-occupation but the law is already on the side of Hawaiians so there is nothing legal that must be done that hasn't already done. For example, if someone breaks into your house is there a science to follow in order to for you to have the right to ask them to leave so you can have your house back? And if they do leave, can your brother then kick you out because you didn't follow the "science"? You are being ridiculous if you think full blooded Kanakas can ever be deported with or without repatriating.
@@soundmind9772 You need to do more homework on political national status and how it makes all the difference. Repatriation is necessary when the inhabitants claiming to be Hawaiian are actually foreign citizens (American native Hawaiian). Regardless if they choose to stay American the native Hawaiian will still have claim to kuleana land as an heir. Without a distinction between American native Hawaiians and Hawaiian nationals there will be no way to have a fair and lawful national vote. Pretty simple if you claim to understand international law.
Much of modern Hawaiian history, is based on illegality. The bayonet constitution in 1887. The illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government on January 17th 1893. The illegal and so-called “annexation” (which is quotation marks because it WASN’T a treaty of annexation but a joint resolution or an american law passed in congress, which has no jurisdiction outside of america's borders) in 1898. All of these illegalities created these false narratives, stories, moʻolelo that Hawaiʻi is apart of the US, when really it isn’t. In reality Hawaiʻi is being illegally occupied by the US and has been since 1893 @t
Let's not forget the illegal annexation of Kaua'i and Ni'ihau by Kamehameha II - colonized by Hawaiians, occupied by the United States, ruled by Japanese, owned by Mark Zuckerberg.
As an American, I must thank you for such a well-researched and explained summary! Most videos and even media articles, on purpose or otherwise, lack the important information to truly understand how the background setup and long process played out. Then again, most are just oversimplified hit pieces.
Obviously, the Japanese Empire had its eyes on Hawaii long-term, especially constering the growing Japanese population. At times the French and then more so the German Empire was also considering its options. All very fascinating to look at and think about!
We have a treaty with japan. That's why they attacked America and not Hawaii. The united states Marines violated international laws. President Grover Cleaveland put our Queen back on her thrown.
@@xpro808 you're quite a funny fellow aren't you?
This video was published over a year ago and yet Professor is as well-polished and research as he always is -- bravo! Sometimes it's difficult to imagine how many innocent people must have died, how much culture erased, in our annexation of Hawaii, despite Hawaii today seeming like an inseparable part of the Union.
Hawai’I wasn’t annexed and it is a rectifiable matter - see my comment to the professor.
My own take on why the UK did not guarantee the Kingdom of Hawaii's independence was more to do with imperial affinity and overreach. Imperial United States was actually a new British Empire made initially from independent colonial settlers with the same imperial mindset that made Canada, Australia and, to a lesser extent, New Zealand. They were also almost identical in their heritage and civic institutions.
Although geopolitical rivals, it would be far better for the BE to have the US control Hawaii than any other power. For the US it was a logical geopolitical acquisition as much as Georgia or Crimea would be to Russia.
Whereas most of the British Empire, as a "salt water" empire, was non-settler colonial, the US as a contiguous land empire was unrestricted generally by either salt water or population limitations. As in the Oregon territory, overwhelming settler colonization wins against a salt water empire's imperial control.
What's really interesting in this video to me is how the 17th Century English experience of political dualism played out in the justification and opposition to annexation. Capitalism (which includes economic control and geopolitical positioning) and the Constitutional Liberalism that is often at odds with it!
As an American from the mainland (the midwest, specifically) I find the story of how Hawaii became a state to be saddening. Looking at Hawaii today though I see that tragic overthrow as just another part of Hawaiian history that has influenced the Hawaiian culture as it is today.
Much like how nations in Europe have a long history of their own of tragic wars, occupations, and overthrows - Hawaii has it's own. The tragedies of all nations are just another part of the long and fascinating history of these places and Hawaii is no different in that regard.
Of course we can look back at the U.S annexation of the Kingdom of Hawaii and acknowledge and apologize for the overthrow, but ultimately these are the cards Hawaii has been dealt by history. placement in the United States on par with California or Ohio.
Thanks. It is such a fascinating story. What is surprising is just how few Americans seem to know much about it. I teach a lot of US students and they aren’t really aware of what happened. More widely, it’s actually quite an interesting ‘what if’ situation. Some say it would have been conquered by Japan anyway. We’ll never know, but it is interesting to wonder.
@@JamesKerLindsay I was very much aware of what happened in Hawaii and I thought you did a wonderful job describing it. Of course I love US History, and the history of all great Nations has its ups and downs and goods and bads and how we acquired some of our territories is certainly a part of that.
I wish that I could say that I was surprised that American students were not aware of these things, but I'm not. Too many American young people are shamefully ignorant of our own history and heritage.
Prof, you missed a *GIGANTIC* fact: Hawai’i was never “Annexed”; USA unlawfully passed a mere, majority-only vote in a joint resolution; per the Law, the Constitution, an annexation MUST be MUTUALLY agreed to (which there was no consent of the Hawaiian people - it was 90+ % against annexation) and MUST be a TREATY that garners 2/3 vote in the SENATE-only (not a joint resolution b/w the House & Senate which has zero jurisdiction or authority in a foreign affairs matter). The Senate could not garner 2/3 vote - due to the to knowledge of the formal written protest of the citizens - so USA violated its own laws, disregarded the consent of the governed, and wrested control of Hawai’i. In international law today, it has been stated that the Hawaiian Kingdom exists in continuity - TODAY - under a “strange form of Occupation by the US”! Subsequent “Statehood” status is moot - the operative legal doctrine is that it is the result of the “fruit of the poisonous tree.” And, it is *RECTIFIABLE* today, as well. See the featured vid on RUclips: “Hawaiian Kingdom Academia” - you have an obligation to correct your summary of events, as it is fatally flawed information & is unintentionally (on your part) a perpetuation of the lie which has strangled Hawai’i since 1893 - this is NOT a resolved issue, but one that Just and Honorable people must aid in making right a terrible wrong. Please fix your presentation as just a start. Mahalo & Aloha! (From a non-native, retired US Army settler.)
It's tempting to think of Hawaii as a nation that was illegally colonized by the USA, but the reality is that Hawaii's location is too strategic for it to remain an independent nation in a world ruled by superpowers. Can you think of a different superpower that would be less problematic to have control of Hawaii? The likelihood that Imperial Japan or China would've respected England's and France's declarations that Hawaii should not be colonized is effectively zero. The very best scenario is that Hawaii would've somehow become the capital of a "United States of Polynesia" -- but the defensibility of such a nation would've still been infeasible due to the sheer amount of exposed coastline.
Thanks. This is a very good point. I accept that Hawaii could well have fallen to China or Japan given its strategic location. In this sense, it is sad that Britain didn't agree to guarantee its sovereignty. This would have made US annexation impossible. But I think that the US would have stepped in later to serve as a protector, if only to maintain the security of the West Coast. After the war, annexation would have been impossible. Instead, it would more likely have become a free association state, like the Marshall Islands. But, equally, I could very easily see a situation where Hawaii would still be an fully independent state today. That said, I do understand that, in the context of Britain's unwillingness to guarantee Hawaii's independence, the US annexation was a preferable outcome to Japanese - or Chinese - occupation.
Perhaps you are correct that Hawaii was too strategic to remain independent in the nineteenth century, perhaps even too weak. However, this is 2021 and Hawaii doesn't need to be "controlled" by a "superpower". Hawaii can control itself just fine. It could certainly maintain its independence if it embraced the same deadly weapons technology as the United States. And why shouldn't it? Hawaii is certainly more trustworthy to keep weapons without abusing its power. The historical record is clear on this point. Private military contractors could be hired as needed for defense and Hawaiian commanding officers are just as capable as U.S. counterparts. The reality is that the weaponization of Hawaii by the U.S. is MISused to to threaten other countries into submission so their resources can be exploited for profit. An independent and neutral Hawaii would certainly disrupt the status quo of exploitation, but the reality is that if the status quo is not disrupted then extinction of humans will be certain and soon. Therefore, supporting Hawaiian independence is a human rights obligation and necessary for the survival of our species. Unfortunately, for political reasons, when Hawaiian independence is finally restored it will come at some economic cost to those who bet against it.
@@soundmind9772 Yeah... that’s not going to happen.
@@lincolnlog5977 you underestimate human greed. The global elite are already betting on Hawaii and against the United States.
@@soundmind9772 no they aren’t
Waiting for Yankeeland to put Guam and Northern Mariana Islands under statehood. Same goes to Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.
Yes. It is interesting that four of those seven territories named by the UN are still under US rule. I would really like to come back to them, especially Guam and American Samoa. I also keep meaning to that video on US vs NZ views on free association. So many topics to explore! :-)
@@JamesKerLindsay There was a recent US Supreme Court ruling that had to do with the citizenship rights on Guam. I don't remember the details, but I think it had to do with whether someone born on the island was considered a US citizen vis a vis travel or working rights in the US mainland.
Hawaii was never annexed by a treaty. You cannot colonize a country in the family of nations. Which Hawaii was in 1843. You can only occupy it. Hawaii has been so occupied since 1893.
A government and the state are separate thing. Read Maslows International Law. Our government was overthrown. Plus Hawaii declared its neutrality in 1864.
Not for long thanks to Red Hill
There's no Treaty of Annexation. This is false and misleading. The Nation of Hawaii is an occupied state.
Just visited a couple islands and all the locals made it real clear tourists, "mainlanders," and some other names I can't recall aren't welcome. From the bumper stickers to the billboards to the loudspeakers on the beaches chanting, "we aren't American," and "F#@K the white man," infront of everyone's children it was a pretty clear how they felt. Naturally I wanted to learn why they felt that way but for fear of my life I didn't dare speak to a local and ask them to educate me. The protest agitator on the loud speaker seemed very knowledgeable but given she was encouraging the crowd of locals to become violent against the tourists enjoying a beautiful day on the beach as a means of returning Hawaii's sovereignty, I felt it wouldn't a good time to learn either. This is how I have come across this video and videos like it. Thank you for the enlightenment! I will use this in conjunction with how we were treated by the locals during our trip to educate my children, friends, and family on how America stole Hawaii and why we should not trespass by visiting the islands. I find it imperative to return Hawaii's sovereignty and in accordance with the locals wishes my family and I will never again return to Hawaii. I will further assist Hawaiians by passing along this history lesson to all my friends and family in an effort to help them respect the people of Hawaii by no longer imposing on their home and land.
Thank you so much. That is so interesting to hear. And obviously it must have been a difficult experience. Often I find that people do want to be able engage on the issue. They like to feel that people are taking an interest. Although it can be different if one is considered to be a protagonist. (The same might apply if I went to Northern Ireland and tried to engage with a hardline Republican. They might naturally assume I am hostile. Obviously it is important to asses the general atmosphere.) But it is important for people in the US to understand why Hawaiians feel aggrieved. It is a shocking story. I’m guessing it isn’t taught in American schools.
What you experienced is backlash as a result of colonization, illegal occupation, subjugation, exploitation, dispossession, expropriation, indoctrination, unjust enrichment, disenfranchisement, enslavement, systemic racism, cruelty and genocide against Hawaiians for over a century. This kind of behavior is not productive at all but it's inevitable and understandable. But it's not right and must be corrected. So rather than vowing to never return to Hawaii, perhaps a better approach is to support Hawaii's independence so Hawaii can begin to heal. All Americans have a compelling interest in expelling the Hawaiian Islands from the "imperfect union" to end the fraud against the United States that began when Hawaii was illegally annexed in the absence of a treaty as required to comply with the U.S. Constitution and international law. An independent Hawaii can begin its journey toward becoming a productive member of the international community and lead by example as it did over a century ago. Rather than arriving in Hawaii unlawfully, foreigners can obtain legal permission from a legitimate Hawaiian government to visit and even immigrate to Hawaii. Surely they will be greeted by locals with ALOHA.
Thank you James for this beautiful piece and for the wonderful job u are doing... I can tell we're are inching close to a piece on republic of Texas ?
Haha! Thanks. Is is that obvious?! :-) Yes, I would love to do a video on Texas. I actually have family there and was in Austin for its Texas Independence Day a number of years ago. It was a fascinating experience. But I had also wanted to take a look at Hawaii for ages. I read an article about it once and was fascinated by this sad story and how its annexation was almost completely overlooked.
@@JamesKerLindsay Next time you're in SW1, make sure to stop by the building where the independent Texas Legation was for a time. There's a nifty plaque.
Lol Texas will never leave the union, like Virginia, factions within the state will declare independence from Texas proper and join the union and the succeeding state will be forced back into line. What ur saying is u want to have a broken up Texas and much weaker back in the USA lol
Wow .Such an interesting video . I knew the general premise of what happened but not the details or people involved
Thank you so much. It is a very sad story, isn’t it? As I researched it, it just became so obvious what a deeply unjust situation it was. But as I just said in a bother comment, the fact that this wrongdoing was openly acknowledged by the United States and that an unreserved apology was issued by Congress says a lot.
I'm from the Philippines! Sure we can very, very much relate to the Hawaiian experience. We may have the worst & most stupid president we have right now BUT we'd rather be independent & govern ourselves not to be dictated by white foreigners anymore. At least we maybe very poor, underdeveloped & corrupt but we are proud to have our own language, culture, traditions. In other words we are an authentic nation. You must have a Filipino blood to be a citizen except through naturalization. Being melting pot didn't saved America from issues of racism. There's no real unity in your so called "diversity" because those people in your country have very different backgrounds. Puerto Rico think twice before joining US you might loose your identity as a distinct country. 😉
Since when does joint resolution annex foreign sovereign territory? "Registered voters" you speak of were AMERICANS. Even the state insurgency knows its illegitimate when they engage with hawaiian nationals AS WE HAVE PROVEN IN CRIMINAL TRIALS. The occupation is ending. Look into Occupied Forces Hawaii Army and the works of Dr. Keanu Sai.
Indeed the occupation will end sooner than most realize but then what? No legitimate government exists at this time. We are in a period of interregnum. The actual history and legal ramifications of Hawaii's capture by the United States are understood by many at this point. You are recycling old news. Why has there been no movement to elect a new legislature or even establish a competent military government with diplomatic relations with foreign heads of State? Most Hawaiians have no idea of the power and potential that sovereignty brings, as well the extreme burden of responsibility that comes with it. If you aren't ready to fight and give your life in a civil war with Kanaka against Kanaka then you might reconsider your position.
@@soundmind9772 you obviously have no idea what we've accomplished and who we're in negotiations with. I dont expect you to want to understand, just know you're ignorant to the fact that a legitimate recognized military government has been established and is actively engaged with international entities as well as federal agencies.
@@deoccupyhawaii6268 I know exactly what you have accomplished and who you are in negotiations with to the extent that it has been revealed. If you are a military government, then act like one and either seize control of your territory or obtain PUBLIC recognition from any head of state. Otherwise you are simply another fraud that must be exposed. You are in over your head my friend.
@@soundmind9772 lol, you make a lot of noise for someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. We already control territory and have all the recognition the US Navy requires to move forward. You might not like our approach but its effective and we have more progress than anyone else ever has. What are you doing besides complaining?
I love this revelation. I have been very much interested in the story of Hawaii, well
Because I do watch beautiful movie and the countries architectural outlook is amazing. I think it should have been more better and appropriate if Hawaii is independence and a Nation on her! There are lots of potential lying there!
Hawaii should become a country. not a state
Question, are you going to talk about the overseas territories with Puerto Rico, Guam, USVI, CNMI , and American Samoa?
Thanks. Yes. I’ve already done a video on Puerto Rico. ruclips.net/video/6uw3X8JulsA/видео.html And I’d really to do ones on Guam and American Samoa.
I also have one I’d like to do on how the US and New Zealand differ on the concept of associated states. It sounds a bit obscure, but it’s surprisingly interesting! :-)
Samoa and Hawaii formed a permanent political confederation on 17 February 1887. Thus, irrespective of the subsequent Tripartite Convention of 1899 (ratified 16 February 1900) and U.S. executive order signed 19 February 1900 - neither of which were binding upon said confederated states - Hawaii, Samoa and 'American' Samoa are politically bound, FOREVER. history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1887/d367
@@soundmind9772 while this was enacted, I believe it was null and void when the kingdom of Hawaii no longer existed. Thus when the monarchy ended, so did the confederation. Plus if American Samoa is sovereign American soil, why are the people nationals and not citizens as it violates the 14th amendment of the constitution
@@JamesKerLindsay if you could do a video on why American Samoans are U.S. nationals and not citizens that would be awesome. Same with what status does the territory want, and why. Other videos of Guam and the CNMI would be cool. Plus the USVI since it’s the only part of the USA that was bought from Denmark
@@dylanshaffer2184 Great question! Firstly, Hawaii was not extinguished but instead became a failed state when the Queen temporary yielded her authority. Hawaii's sovereignty was merely displaced (i.e., Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia). A treaty is not null and void if one of the Nation parties becomes a failed state (i.e. Somalia). Even if, for the sake of argument, annexation was lawful (which it was not, even under U.S. law), Midway atoll was occupied but expressly excluded from annexation. Thus, Hawaii remains and Midway is precluded by modern international law from now being incorporated into the U.S. absent a treaty between recognized sovereigns. Moreover, the remaining Hawaiian Islands cannot be separated from Midway under the principle of territorial integrity (see Chagos Islands).
As to the question of nationals vs. citizens, American Samoans, being a subjugated alien People under U.S. and international law, owe permanent allegiance to the U.S. under the Law of Conquest. Philippines had the same status as U.S. nationals prior to breaking their American chains. Citizenship under the 14th amendment is not available to American Samoans because of their inherent pre-existing sovereignty to their tribal governments (see Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)). U.S. Citizenship is available to persons born in Hawaii under the power of Congress, not under the Constitution. No similar law, however, exists for American Samoans.
Annexation Treaty between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the US?
The treaty never became operative and the United States admitted as much in the Hawaiian Claims case (Great Britain v. United States), Award of 10 November 1925. The United States further confessed to wrongdoing and committed itself to accept the consequences of such wrongdoing. Thus, the liability of the United States to the People of Hawaii is effectively unlimited. Even restoration of independence may not be enough to completely reconcile for what has been done and continues to be done. Hawaii is the Achilles heel of the United States. Hawaii will be viewed by the world as analogous to the situation in Ukraine for purposes of applicable international law, with the additional consideration that the right to restore independence in the exercise of self-determination belongs exclusively to the native people of Hawaii. Like the aboriginal Hawaiian monarchs who previously ruled Hawaii, the native population has supreme political authority to completely replace, restore, reestablish or reinstate their political system, at will, simply by exercising its prerogative to do so. The native population not only has this supremely important political right, but it also has the duty. Right cannot exist without duty.
Maybe if they had about eight million native Hawaiian people, even if they were annexed, even if they were occupied by Japan, the independence movement and the lesser appeal to the Americans of being outnumbered by the locals would have led to an actual Hawaiian state.
Look at the Philippines.
What if Hawaii was an independent state down to this day? For instance, if in 1993, what with the fall of the Soviet Union and much less of a need to maintain a base in the Pacific, the independence movement seized on the apology and gained steam, and the Americans just decided it wasn't worth the trouble holding on to the islands?
Again, look at the Philippines.
Similar histories, except the Filipinos got formal independence and even booted out the bases (with the help of a volcano, but still...).
I think the Philippines is the Hawaii that never was.
It's not necessary to have eight million natives. All it takes are a few very stubborn people, native or otherwise, who are adamantly against any other outcome except for independence, and that is enough. Thanks to Red Hill, those very stubborn people have arrived.
Honestly you can say it is a sad story but there was basically an imperial cold war between the great powers who were all expanding in that era, and had America not followed suit these territories would simply have been colonized by some other, likely more brutal, power.
Let me preface the rest of my reply by saying this is largely my opinion, and as an American I’m thus somewhat biased but I consider myself to be well educated on both America’s proud and not-so-proud moments.
Yes America has had it’s moments of brutality and neglect, as any other power has, but on the whole America has always treated its native peoples, on both the mainland and in overseas possessions, better than almost any other empire in history. Even in America’s Indian Wars, for example General Custer was fighting against one Native American faction on behalf of, and allied with, other native tribes. In terms of comparable continental empires conquering large amounts of colonial or native territory, Imperial Russia and Imperial/Nazi Germany were far more brutal, and in terms of overseas empires Britain, Spain, France, Japan and others have historically been much more violent. For example, the people of the American Virgin Islands say that things were extremely harsh under the Danish and that when America bought the islands life improved.
Would Arizona really be better off if it were still part of Mexico, or even under the old native confederacies, than it is currently as an American retirement home? Likewise would Hawaii be better off as a Tonga-like independent kingdom subject to manipulation by all the great powers in a possibly hostile manner, instead of as an incorporated territory and then a state of one power (America) in an inclusive representative manner?
Even the unincorporated territories are, in my opinion, better off as American colonies than as some possible banana republic. Heck Puerto Rico’s local government pretty much is a banana republic these days, if they didn’t have American dollars pouring in they’d be totally bankrupt. In my personal opinion it has no real shot at becoming a state, beyond as a political talking point by those who believe Puerto Ricans would vote for them, as no unincorporated territory has ever become an American state. Indeed the whole point of the status is that these are foreign lands under American possession, and thus are not part of union itself the way incorporated territories are, and thus can be bought or sold, as you mentioned. For example if America ever buys Greenland it would likely be subject to this and would become an unincorporated territory. The only way to change this would be to, I presume, have a large amount of mainland Americans move to, say, Puerto Rico, and push for a new organic act as an incorporated territory. It would have to shore up a number of elements internally to meet the criteria for incorporation, so once it actually succeeded and became incorporated it would likely be on a fast track to statehood. But that’s very unlikely, as the business attraction of Puerto Rico simply doesn’t exist, its corrupt government and poor use of taxpayer dollars makes it, in my opinion, virtually uninvestable, and thus unlikely to have the requisite population growth from the mainland to make incorporation possible.
Thanks so much. I wondered what you would make of it.
I suspect that you are right. Given its strategic location and its weakness, there is an argument to say that if Hawaii wasn’t the United States then it would have been another country - most probably Japan. Then again, as I also noted, it may well have been the case that the US and imperial Japan reached a compromise to leave the islands neutral, rather in the same way as Britain and France had. What a different world we might be living in today had that happened!
But in many ways a more interesting ‘what if’ concerns the possibility of the Kingdom having become an incorporated territory. Could Hawaii have become a US State with a Monarch?
By the way, there was loads of material that I uncovered that I obviously had to leave out. With the videos I gave to try to develop a specific story arc that is hopefully easy to follow for people who don’t know much, or anything about the topic, but I actually had about three different ways to tell this story. One if the other approaches I took was to look at how Britain’s relationship evolved. It actually tried to stop Hawaii from getting close to the US. There were some wonderful exchanges. Interestingly, one of the arguments the British adopted was that the US was actually far worse than the British at looking after their ‘natives’. In 1854, as the idea of annexation was being seriously explored, the British consul actually managed to help kill off the idea by noting that Hawaii’s geographical position meant that it would be in the US South and so the native Hawaiians could find themselves enslaved! I put a link to an article in the description. (I don’t know if you have access to an academic library, but it is well worth a read.)
Anyway, as you can imagine, there were so many elements I had to leave out. And many more I’d like to follow up further. For example, I find the idea if incorporation vs unincorporation interesting. I’d really like to look into it in more detail.
@TheLocalLt as an American, I assume you also realize that Hawaii, being a colonial possession of the United States that was never legitimately annexed by Treaty or otherwise permanently conquered in compliance with the Constitution or international law, is a fraud perpetrated upon the American People by their own government. This issue was raised by the Senate, which refused to ratify a treaty of annexation, as evidenced by the Congressional Record. Every penny of federal funds intended for U.S. States and instead given to the people of Hawaii is indeed theft from the American public.
Although Hawaii’s annexation and admission as a State is a political question conveniently not subject to review by U.S. courts, the fraud upon honest American taxpayers cannot be ignored forever. Hawaii’s fraudulent statehood also allows an otherwise foreign country to participate in U.S. domestic affairs and provides the Democratic Party with undue influence in U.S. politics. Furthermore, Hawaii is a colony in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Indeed it may pretend to be part of the United States but it never was and could never be America. Whether Hawaii is "better off" as part of the United States has no bearing on whether Americans ought to be defrauded by their own government in collusion with foreign conspirators. An honest American President would simply put an end to the lie once and for all - and every U.S. President already has the power to do it.
@@JamesKerLindsay not criticizing the video at all I should have said at the start it was another great one. And that’s a great story, honestly Hawaii would have been better off as a British possession at the time, as long as it was as a protectorate where the monarchy remained, but today I think Hawaii as a state is better than it would be as independent, (assuming the British would have left by now).
The British take on having a moral claim to the Islands is amusing; in most countries, even during the most depraved regimes in history, it seems most people, especially those in the military, always view their own country as self-righteous. I’m sure that my comment is exactly reflective of that truth
I could make the pushback to their argument that slaveholding plantations in newer parts of the colonial American South such as British Georgia and British Carolina was basically created as extension of the Scottish and English slaveholding plantations in British Jamaica. But of course the real reality is that slavery has a long history among many powers and cultures and no one is to “blame” for it, we should just be glad we live in this lucky time when it is largely gone (well except in North Korea and Communist China - but even that’s not classical slavery, that’s “people’s democratic” slavery)
Your views are views that are utterly colonialist in mindset and in practice.
The Hawaiian Kingdom was recognized with a Treaty of Neutrality. It was also recognized as an Independent Sovereign Nation State so International laws apply and A Treaty of Annexation, Cession or Peace was necessary for any country to take over Hawaii. The Hawaiian Kingdom's GOVERNMENT was illegally overthrown not its Country and it STILL IS TODAY. See U.S. Public Law 103-150, the Apology Resolution. The Hague & Geneva Conventions IV must be applied during occupation. The confusion comes because the U.S.'s lie was so good and the lack of people's understanding in international laws allowed the occupation to APPEAR lawful. Why apologize for raping and pillaging if you're not going to right the wrong? Queen Lili'u and the Hawaiian people NEVER agreed to give up their Sovereignty or agree to a Nation within a Nation. Hawaiians are NOT Native Americans! We Love our Native American brothers and sisters but they did not have their own Independent recognition, government, palace and were never part of the Family of Nations, as Hawai'i was and still IS but under ILLEGAL, BELLIGERENT, PROLONGED AND CONTINUED OCCUPATION by the United States. The lie was a good one! The U.S. and State of Hawaii Corporations fooled the whole world, but 128 years is as much as their going to get. Restitutions are due not only to all Native Subjects and Nationals but to everyone that were tricked into purchasing a "Piece of Paradise" and believing that they were born, married, divorced or died in the U.S. All legal Certificates in Hawai'i since January 17, 1893 have been falsified! Now think of the ramifications of that! All lands sold were the properties of the original Royal Patent and Land Commission Awardees in PERPETUITY! All State Notary Publics and RegIstrars are INSURGENTS! Now take a moment to take that ALL in. How much does the U.S. owe you and your family and friends for this fraud and corruption?
All private and public lands are subject to the right of eminent domain by the government in power. There is no such thing as perpetuity when it comes to property ownership because sovereignty can override it for the common good. A simple amendment to the Hawaiian constitution is all that is needed. Given that a majority of Hawaiians have had little to no land even before 1893 is proof that massive land reform would be a welcome change.
@@soundmind9772 but who are the Hawaiians that would be making the changes to the Constitution and which Constitution? There are so many kanaka that have different opinions regarding that very questions. Also, the TRUE titles to all our lands are being held by foreigners. We need to be given back what is rightfully our Nation's property. Most of our people don't even have a clue as to who is holding our Kingdom's true titles and our gold. We are the richest country in the world, we have no debt and many countries know this fact.
@@raylene1921 the changes would be made by the duly elected legislature and the amended constitution would replace all previous constitutions so it wouldn't really matter which constitution was being amended. However, a legitimate election must necessarily include all registered Hawaiian Kingdom voters who are descendants of kanaka maoli and should also include any who wish to register to vote who are descendants of those non-kanaka born or naturalized in Hawaii prior to 1898. It's best if a law were passed to simply abolish all existing land titles and reissue new titles to self-organized autonomous collectives that resemble ahupua'a villages or similar to a homeowners association. People should have the freedom to move between collectives with permission from their new collective. We don't need gold just our land is enough. If we can get additional land as reparations that would be even better. Technology and training are also valuable, as well as rare earth materials.
@@soundmind9772 I concur! The ea-ducation will take time so that those that chose to be Hawaiian Kingdom Subjects/Nationals are well informed and given full disclosure prior to registering to call Hawai'i home. This also takes development of a research program that can perform each person's mo'okuauhau to prove if they qualify to make the choice. All lands in Hawai'i have been claimed and liened in commerce and the public record by James Akahi Nui in the early 2000's. All kanaka will be able to register to be stewards, caretakers and guardians of the lands and pass it down to their future generations until it no longer can be. At this point, the Kingdom would distribute it to another kanaka to do the same. The lands will never be sold again. Too much pilikia has occurred because of greed and fortune. We must not allow that to happen again. As far as our Kingdom gold that our Mo'i transferred to keep safe, it will be returned to the Kingdom.
@@raylene1921 Mahalo. Unfortunately we are a failed State and have had no legitimately elected leaders since 1893, nor have we had any illegitimate leadership who have successfully seized control over our national territory other than the U.S. government and its political subdivisions. Therefore, the United States, under the doctrine of necessity, will and should continue to serve as the de facto government for as long as a legitimate replacement does not challenge United States jurisdiction. Foreign governments can also take the initiative to hold the United States accountable for their actions, but these foreign governments are under no obligation to do so unless and until either a successor Hawaiian government is formed and A) recognized as a government in exile on FOREIGN soil OR B) successfully gains physical control over some earthly territory that can sustain a human population. National homeland territory would be best but technically a successor Hawaiian government could literally occupy ANY territory ANYWHERE and seek recognition from there, even some random location such as Guam or Pitcairn island. There are strategic reasons why an interim Hawaiian government would choose one specific physical location to occupy over another and it would be wise to collaborate with at least one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council for obvious reasons. However, NOTHING will happen in our favor automatically. It requires extreme initiative to organize an effective election and/or gain actual control over territory. Not one of the actors claiming to represent the Hawaiian People are attempting to do either of these things. They are too busy working to preserve the internal power structure that has controlled things in Hawaii since before 1893. Now that the United States is no longer needed, the Hawaii oligarchy is trying to figure out how to break away without losing control of Hawaii's resources ("ceded" lands, etc.). Good luck with that. A change gonna come.
Thank you ICC! Individual war criminals in Hawaii will finally face justice :)
Surprised they didn’t bother resist with force when they were invaded.
3 possible reasons..... #1 U.S. military was a superior military force and defeat was certain. #2 Queen was paid off. #3 Queen thought she was being paid off but was tricked instead. Either way, the Queen knew that annexation would fail because Americans would reject the Hawaiian people. She was 100% correct. Thus annexation never happened. Hawaii was captured instead and remains occupied until today.
@@soundmind9772 The #1 wouldn’t really matter if they had the will to fight. People are willing to fight if it is something they believe in. Vietnam and Afghanistan.
@@justinkase5260 the difference with Vietnam and Afghanistan is that defeat was not certain. Same for the Philippines and Cuba. Hawaiians were not so dumb to risk life when yielding was the obviously better choice. Pride is foolish when there are better alternatives than death. Note that yielding is not the same thing as signing a treaty of annexation. Thus, the right to restoration of Hawaiian independence has been preserved without bloodshed. This right need not be exercised, but will be available to the Hawaiian People in perpetuity.
Hawaii is occupied like how Indonesia currently occupies West Papua.
Precisely. Just like Hong Kong was occupied by Great Britain, Macao and Goa were occupied by Portugal, and Morocco was occupied by France and is still occupied by Spain. Like Hawaii, American Samoa is part of the Hawaiian-Samoan political union formed in the 19th century that is also still occupied by the United States. Note that Hawaii itself was united via colonialism because King Kamehameha colonized separate Kingdoms in Maui, Oahu and Kauai and no peace treaties were ever signed to conclude any Hawaiian wars. Once Hawaii regains its independence from the United States, much of the Hawaiian territory will be subject to decolonization procedures to allow the Peoples of their respective island Kingdoms to exercise their rights of self-determination.
America has to learn that states can make mistakes. An illegal occupation cannot be whitewashed with legal reasoning.
Since the colony of Hawaii was established by Great Britain in 1843, Hawaii became ripe for decolonization in 2019 following the precedent set by the American colonies (established in 1607 and abolished by the Treaty of Paris of 1783). 'ONIPA'A KAKOU!
“If that Nation throws off the yoke itself and sets itself at liberty, it re-enters into the enjoyment of all its rights and regains its former position; and it is not for other Nations to decide whether it has released itself from a lawful authority or has broken its chains.” -The Law of Nations (Vattel).
Continued U.S. occupation of Hawaii can be considered illegal under international law. The US annexed Hawaii basis an act of the US Congress, which is a US domestic law. Since Hawaii was an internationally recognized independent nation it would require an international treaty between the Kingdom of Hawaii and the USA to make the annexation legal. But since the USA is a major power nobody, including the "western democracies", dares to challenge the USA occupation. Seems might makes right.
Of course it's illegal. Unfortunately Hawaii was played by the global elite and most nations were in collusion from the beginning. In true mafia style, Hawaii was "made" so she could be exploited by the "family" and once they gained her trust they simply took over her turf. Corporations were used to disguise the various foreign shareholders from many different countries, not just the United States. This has happened so many times to other nations since then.
Note that the United States has never claimed to have conquered Hawaii. Even if that claim were to be asserted, I am unaware of any examples of a once-recognized sovereign and independent State that was irreversibly extinguished or its territory annexed via conquest in the absence of a treaty unless the nation was entirely subdued, or in case it was destroyed and ceased to exist as the result of war. See United States v. Huckabee, 83 US 414 (1873). No treaty exists in the case of the annexation of Hawaii by the United States, nor has conquest been asserted. Thus, just as the Independent State of the Congo resumed independence again as the Republic of Congo, just as Morocco resumed independence after French and Spanish occupation, and just as Goa was reclaimed from Portugal by India, Hawaii's annexation is reversible. This right would also apply to the Ryukyu Islands, Hyderabad, Junagarh and disputed territories claimed by Morocco such as Western Sahara, Ceuta and Melilla.
Hawaii may be the only member of the Family of Nations with such an extensive history of international recognition and diplomatic relations to be deprived of its independence without a treaty of cession and without having lost any war. Even where conquest has indeed been confirmed by treaty, as it was with Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Macau, Tahiti, or more recently with Korea, the conquering state can still be compelled to reverse their conquest. Conceivably this would also apply to Texas and much of the United States that was acquired via treaties with Indian tribes.
Rather than a case of permanent conquest, the occupation of Hawaii is a case of temporary acquiescence for the sake of preventing bloodshed and maintaining peace and order in the wake of an illegal usurpation of governmental authority. Even the United States has opened the door to the possibility of resuming international relations with Hawaii by issuing a formal apology.
@@The.Hawaiian.Kingdom it's not a treaty of cession because a treaty does not exist at all, regardless of what kind of treaty. Public Law 103-150 is indeed an apology as well as an admission of guilt, irrespective of whether you think it should have apologized for something other than what was apologized for or whether it admits what you think it should admit. For example someone can burn your house down and kill your dog and apologize for and admit to killing your dog while bragging to their friends about burning your house down. That's not empty. It's not gonna help you win friends, but it's not empty.
The United States does not "conquer" other nations and peoples. They merely "bring democracy" to the unwashed minority masses...
@@onocoffee "Then why have we not, if we need a coaling station in the Hawaiian Islands now, if we have needed it so badly as the Senator states, had a treaty to give us one in Honolulu Harbor before the war began? Mr. Dole would be very willing to enter into any kind of treaty with us. But the matter has been held up for the purpose of attempting to create a necessity, and we are asked in the presence of necessity to do that which a sane man under ordinary circumstances would not think of doing, this to establish a precedent in order to enable our speculative friends in various parts of the world to argue that we ought to annex all the barbarian tribes we may conquer in this war." -U.S. SENATE. TUESDAY, May 31, 1898. WAR-REVENUE BILL, during the Spanish American War.
Unfortunately, the U.S. wanted to emulate Europe in the 19th Century and decided to do its own colonizing (Cuba, Hawaii, the Philippines) as well. This started us down the path of interfering in the business of other nations and its only gotten worse over time. Twenty years in Afghanistan - for what??!!
It's true. It has been said that the thing that a slave wants more than freedom is to have their own slaves. The same may be said of colonies.
Wrong Hawaii is not part of americas fraud. There is no treaty of annexation and no treaty of peace between the 2 nation states. A joint resolution of a foreign country is illegal and a war crime. The kanaka maoli is the original people that god my father made from the dirt of ko Hawaii pae aina.
Hawaii is already independent, free and prosperous when you think about it. The multi-ethnic people of Hawaii today enjoy democracy, freedom to vote, unlimited travel outside the country, fair rule of law, Liberty, free speech and the right to succeed in life, own a business, go to University etc. Just like every other American.
We are free to practise any religion of our choosing and we have a Governor that looks after the people. Also we are protected by the only Superpower - the USA.
This is TRUE individual self-determination that some Hawaiians seek and what the US constitution offers. What more can we ask for?
Nobody in the 21st century wants Hawaii to return back to the backward eras of Kings and Queens, racism, bigotry, xenophobia, tribalism and human sacrifices C'mon lol
Thanks. I’m not sure it would still have human sacrifice in the 21st century, to be honest. :-) Seriously though, I understand that it is free and prosperous. But it is also important to understand that it has nevertheless been the victim of a history injustice. There was a very good reason why the US government apologised for its actions. It really was an act of appalling colonialism; however one might like to call it. In this case though, Hawaii was never given the choice about its future. It was just incorporated into the US. Now, I accept that this may have been what people wanted. But, again, the whole demographic make up of the territory had changed. Would this have been what the people would have wanted if they had never been annexed and the population remained as it was? We’ll never know. But it is important to understand and recognise what happened, and the lasting consequences of those actions - even if you do think that the outcome is broadly beneficial. The problem is that there is a very five line between this and a colonial mentality that says, “It’s fine what we do as it’s really in their interest, even if they don’t know it.”
@@JamesKerLindsay Thanks for the thoughtful response, and I agree we may never know how Hawaii might have turned out had it gained full independence back then. Society might became better than today (unlikely, unless there's a better system than Liberal Democracy that we don't know of), or worse which is very possible. It might even end up like North Korea - a fully sovereign nation with "self determination" for the party, but not for the people. We really have to re-define what self-determination means.. self determination for the government or the citizens?
We can ask for as much as we want. We can ask for equality, a means of subsistence for all, freedom to control our own borders, freedom to treaty with other nations, freedom of expropriation, freedom to disregard the U.S. constitution, freedom from alien domination, freedom to sleep in public spaces without fear of harassment, food sovereignty, free healthcare, free education taught in the Hawaiian language. How would Americans feel if they had to pledge allegiance to the flag of the People's Republic of China, if American schools taught everything in Chinese and if all American officials took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the People's Republic of China? Clearly alien domination would not fly in America just because millions of Chinese people are ok under Chinese rule. Why should Hawaiians be ok with alien domination just because millions of Americans are ok under American rule?
@@bruceli9094 The US Supreme Court ruled that states cannot secede, presumably including Hawaii. Going for independence would require a constitutional amendment effectively abolishing the "perpetual union" that is America. American colonialism stripped Hawaii of its identity, and that needs redress. Working towards that would prove more fruitful than seeking full sovereignty and risk being exploited by other Great Powers nearby...
@@charlesmadre5568 The preclusion to an independent Hawaii has more to do with a lack of political will because the U.S. is Hawaii's loyal servant from the perspective of the Hawaii oligarchs. Neither secession nor constitutional amendment is necessary for independence because the U.S. government can simply add some random territory to the State of Hawaii (such as Wake atoll) and subsequently recognize a sovereign Hawaiian government and then radically redefine the boundaries of the State of Hawaii in response to U.S. Public Law 103-150, thereby returning the original territory to the sovereign Hawaiian government pursuant to Jones v. United States 137 US 202 (1890). The resulting State of Hawaii would consist only of Wake atoll. Voila!
Fascinating story, thanks for telling it! As another video idea, maybe you could talk about how the colonial empires in the Americas and then the US treated the indigenous populations. Is it true they were sometimes treated like independent states that could be made treaties with? Or what exactly entities like the Cherokee Nation were and still are?
Never and i mean never bring up the C word around an English man😬
@@thetruthSL What? Why?
9:51 If Hawaii already attained a "full measure of self-government" as evidenced by international recognition and numerous treaties with other countries, including the United States, then why did the United States include Hawaii on its list of territories whose Peoples had "not yet attained a full measure of self-government" in accordance with Chapter IX of the Charter of the newly established United Nations? Was Kamehameha used by the United States as a proxy to conquer and colonize the Hawaiian People and deprive them of their right to self determination? The Apology Resolution (Pub. Law 103-150) of November 23, 1993 would suggest as much.
Because it had that full self-government before it was removed by the United States and effectively became a colony. As of Kamehameha, his main interaction was with the British, not the US. And, as I mentioned, while he would have been willing to see Hawaii become a protectorate, Britain didn’t think it was necessary. Of course, history could have been very different if it had. Hawaii might have remained in British hands until. WWII. And while Japan might still have invaded, as they did with Singapore, at the end of the War it would have had its sovereignty restored.
@@JamesKerLindsay I love your answer! Thank you! Are you aware of any other country that attained full self-government prior to being subsequently reduced to a colony and thus placed on the UN list of non self-governing territories? Also, in light of the 1893 letter from President Cleveland to Congress or the more recent 1993 Apology Resolution, could Hawaii be reinscribed on the list like French Polynesia? Although incorporation of Hawaii may technically be irreversible under U.S. law (absent consent from all 50 States or revolution), the boundaries of the State of Hawaii are certainly negotiable as a matter of international and U.S. law to be settled by treaty and/or an act of Congress or the executive branch of the United States. See Jones v. United States, 137 U.S. 202 (1890). Restoring independence to even a teeny tiny sliver of the original Hawaiian territory would be a game changer for Hawaiian patriots and quite useful to influential U.S. corporations (and military) seeking a convenient jurisdiction where U.S. law no longer applies.
Hawaiians have full US citizenship and representation as much as any other state. They would have been a conquered people by a major power without any doubt.
Wrong, the U.S. actually set us back 100 years
Conquest of a neutral country is entirely reversible.
You speak fiction fact is America is illegally occupying Hawaii. that be saying Russia needs to occupy Ukraine because Germany might occupy them.
Oh jeez!!! Double check the title of the video!
Thanks a lot. Oops. I changed the title yesterday. The spell check missed it!
It's the Christian Missionaries always , gateway imperialism and colonialism
interesting. do you think that one day we could see an independent hawaii as a member of the un?
It’s important to realize that Hawaii is no longer an ethnostate caste based monarchy, there is a significant Asian-American and White-American population on the islands, which outnumber the native Hawaiians. The majority of Hawaiians (including native Hawaiians) are patriotic Americans, and consider themselves as such. An independent Hawaii would entail disenfranchising thousands of people who currently do not even entertain such an idea, let alone support it. Also realize that secession is wholly illegal in the US (at least for states not territories), remember there was a whole war fought over it, so as soon as Hawaii became a state independence become untenable.
@@matt1sullivan318 Disenfranchising thousands of people is not incompatible with U.S. policy, and yet reaffirming Hawaiian independence need not disenfranchise anyone. U.S. citizens and former U.S. citizens thrive perfectly well in other English-speaking former colonies (i.e. Hong Kong, Singapore, UAE, Malaysia, Philippines, etc.). Beyond that, although Hawaii is a democracy, it has been ruled by a minority elite for more than two centuries and We the People have little say, regardless of the ethnicity of the rulers of the day or the general population.
As for the illegality of secession, it doesn't apply to Hawaii because the U.S. State of Hawaii will likely remain. The difference will be that its territory will be redefined in accordance with a future treaty negotiated between the U.S. and a recognized Most Serene Hawaiian Nation-State. This would be similar to the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842 with Great Britain or the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848 with Mexico, neither of which resulted in secession, but the U.S. did in fact return INCORPORATED territory to a preexisting sovereign in each case. Also, do not forget Midway Atoll, which was never incorporated, but is certainly part of the Hawaiian Nation-State since July 5, 1859 (acknowledged in the U.S. Congressional Record, despite U.S. occupation since August 28, 1867 and misinformation promoted on the internet). Recognizing the Philippines as a precedent, Midway is ripe for independence from the United States.
Hawaii sovereignty was doom. A small free nation surrounded by larger powers. If the US did annexed Hawaii in 1893, Japan would have. To show the importance of Hawaii location Japan was willing to fight the US in 1895 for it, but in 1895 there was a rebellions in Taiwan and the military needed to put down the rebellion.
Japan was too weak to annex Hawaii, which was protected by Western powers that were completely offended by the idea of an Asian country attempting to colonize another country. Japan learned a valuable lesson and would not dare attempt such a thing ever again. Western powers allowed Japan to keep Okinawa as a colony on the condition that the United States could use it however it pleased. Another point is that Hawaiian rulers saw American immigrants as their equals but that was not the case with Japanese immigrants to Hawaii, who were imported as cheap labor. Hawaiians were inclined to respect American authority but it would not have been the same if Japanese rule were forced upon Hawaii. Kanaka would snap under such conditions.
Ha'ole propaganda. Look what 'They' did Today!
Hawaii will never leave the United States, the native Hawaiians are nothing but a super minority hovering less than 10%.
Hawaii would hold a vote and it would overwhelming be pro union. The only way I can see this happening in a fantasy scenario where the "Americans" come back to the mainland and the natives are given the vote, and the granted... Each one is crazier than the last.
Thanks so much. I don’t think there is any any realistic prospect of independence now, I agree. But it’s interesting to consider the way it was incorporated into the USA.
You do realize that Hawaii has always been ruled by a minority don't you? The same is true for America and the world. All empires eventually fall and Hawaii will leave the United States when it gets a better deal from another country.
7:12 Yikes, what a fascist, i'm glad multiculturalism won in the end.
So being a fascist is to have a country that JUST has its own people in it? Lol. Start criticising Japan then plz.
@@stepanovtakiov9311
People do critique Japan for that.
The truth is, political literacy is so low nowadays that protecting a native population is seen as fascist.
There's no annexation!!! Get your facts straight!!!
Yes, there was. It was clearly annexation by any serious understanding of the term. And Congress apologised for what happened. It would not have done so unless it understood that Hawaii's entry into the union was not done in a way that met the standards of decency and fairness. I know the United States likes to see itself as different from other colonial powers, but it too has a rather dark past.
@@JamesKerLindsay we were the first non European admitted in to the Family of nations under great Brittain. That's where our first king got his weapons to unite all the islands under a single rule. Our king joined the British army and that's why we have the union Jack on our flag.
@@JamesKerLindsay Inasmuch as Belgium was annexed by Germany in 1914, yes the Hawaiian Islands were annexed by the United States on August 12, 1898 during the Spanish American War. Thus, the operative date of annexation is August 12, 1898, which is the date of capture and possession rather than the date of the internationally-irrelevant Newlands Resolution passed by Congress on July 7, 1898. As for the apology resolution, this is enabling legislation to urge the President to take action in compliance with relevant international law and to grant the Executive branch carte blanche authority to "acknowledge the ramifications" of U.S. meddling in Hawaiian affairs. This may include, without limitation, restoration of Hawaiian independence, withdrawal of U.S. jurisdiction and sovereignty from all or any portion of disputed Hawaiian territory, cession of ADDITIONAL territory as redress and/or indemnity, including American Samoa, Guam, Wake, Midway, etc. While this may result in the reduction of the SIZE of the State of Hawaii, this territorial adjustment would not necessarily remove the State of Hawaii from the Union.
RECOGNISE SOMALILAND
Well said! Do you think Somaliland should recognize both China and Taiwan as a way to demonstrate that recognition is the prerogative of sovereign states and that other countries should not succumb to peer pressure and threats?
🤣😅🤣😂😂🤣 false history but great try James.
Says random anonymous internet bloke! :-) But happy to hear any specific comments you might have.
@@JamesKerLindsay He may be referring to your false claim that the United States formally annexed Hawaii. It would be more accurate to say "the United States purported to annex the Hawaiian Islands but instead only took possession by peaceful conquest." As an expert in international law, surely you must concede that the American view of international law in 1898 did not permit permanent conquest of a neutral nation in the absence of a treaty. See Henry W. Halleck, International Law 812 (1861) ("So far as neutrals are concerned, it belongs to the conquering State, but does not form a part of it. It is held by the right of possession and not by complete title, and is therefore subject to the rights of postliminy."). The excuse to capture the Hawaiian Islands as a necessity of war was also bogus because Spain had already secretly negotiated the terms of its subsequent surrender to take place the following day immediately after the fake battle of Manilla. The outcome of the Spanish American War had everything to do with white supremacy and the white leaders of the United States succeeding to the white leaders of Spanish colonies, the Hawaiian Islands and even Samoa because none of the white powers were willing to allow non-white Peoples (referred to by U.S. Senators as "barbarian tribes") to enjoy equal sovereignty with whites. The possession of the Hawaiian Islands masquerading as an annexation was a test to see if and how long the United States could get away with it. The U.S. apology is merely lip service and meaningless without action.
An apology is not enough. I believe it more appropriate for the USA to restore the monarchy of the Kingdom of Hawaii as it was and allow the native Hawaiians (true Hawaiians of at least 1/4 blood) ONLY to vote their choice for the future of Hawaii including expelling any foreigners which have settled there in the last century. This would partially restore the Hawaiian rights and lead to reparations by the USA for this travesty of selfish American foreign intrigue. It should be an independent kingdom.
Unfortunately, this can’t be rolled back now. Even by the end of the nineteenth century the demographic changes had rendered the native Hawaiians a minority. But it is a fascinating ‘what if’ of history. Would the USA have entered WWII if Hawaii had still been independent? I wonder if Japan and US might have struck an agreement to keep it neutral, effectively putting it off limits to them both and Britain and France did a century earlier, and as Switzerland was in Europe during WWII. The other question is what would have happened if it had joined the US as a monarchy, as was being explored in 1854. Would be today have a US state with a king or queen. It’s an interesting thought!
@@JamesKerLindsay I still think the USA has no business usurping the powers of another people. There is a Hawaiian Island, Niihau, with only native Hawaiians allowed to live on it. I think it is possible to restore a monarchy there and expand the country as foreigners who came in the last 150 years are relocated in the USA Hawaiians retake their patrimony and reparations are paid to the native Hawaiian people by the USA. This would be justice. This example could be also applied to other American territories in the Pacific such as American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas.
@@JamesKerLindsay Please anyone feel free to correct and/or criticize my comments.
It is not correct to say that this can’t be rolled back. The reality is that Hawaii continues to have obligations to its people and the international community that it must be held accountable for (like other failed States such as Somalia). Despite efforts by the United States to assume Hawaii’s Kuleana (responsibility), the legal international personality of Hawaii as recognized by Great Britain and France in 1843 was not and could not have been extinguished based on actual historical events and relevant international law. James, in your video ruclips.net/video/vkhWoFirV7A/видео.html entitled “What is Self-Determination? | The most misunderstood idea in international relations” you state (from 5:11 to 5:45) that “[i]n effect, two distinct forms of self-determination now emerged. One of these leads to independence, the other to self-rule within a state. The form that leads to independence is usually known as external self-determination. However this is understood to apply only to cases of alien subjugation. Specifically this is understood to mean cases of colonialism, or territories under foreign military occupation. Importantly colonialism in this context was understood to refer to overseas holdings, what is sometimes been called ‘saltwater colonialism’.”
Hawaii is indeed a case of alien subjugation, military occupation and saltwater colonialism for purposes of applying the principle of self-determination.
The argument that Hawaii “lost” its right to external self determination when it allegedly became a U.S. state fails on the basis that Hawaii previously achieved independence (recognized in 1843) and its legal personality was never extinguished under relevant international law - despite being a failed State (similar to Somalia).
Hawaii is a special case of State failure where no competent government presently exists, the State is no longer being formally acknowledged by other nations and its territorial boundaries are not presently being respected. This becomes embarrassingly obvious when examining the political status of anomalies such as the Midway Islands, which were admitted in the Congressional Record to have been legitimately claimed by and as part of the Hawaiian Kingdom on July 5, 1859, yet later occupied by U.S. military forces on August 28, 1867 but never formally incorporated into the United States in accordance with U.S. or international law. Unlike many other U.S. territorial possessions, Midway was never claimed under the Guano Islands Act (11 Stat. 119, enacted August 18, 1856, codified at 48 U.S.C. ch. 8 §§ 1411-1419) as mistakenly promoted on the internet and, like Johnston Atoll and Palmyra Atoll, it was expressly excluded from annexation and statehood. These territorial anomalies also raise issues with respect to the apparent contradictions that arise when attempting to reconcile the principle of territorial integrity with distinctions made by U.S. courts between incorporated and unincorporated territory.
Thus, due to the advancement of international law, it is too late to “incorporate” Midway into the United States (via joint resolution or otherwise), which is as much a colonial possession of the United States as the Chagos Islands are to Great Britain. Therefore, Midway is presently occupied Hawaiian territory, just as it was when this U.S. colonial possession was strategically attacked by Japan in 1941 and again in 1942, unless and until officially disclaimed via Treaty between recognized sovereigns. Moreover, due to the principle of territorial integrity, the rest of the Hawaiian Islands Archipelago, although deemed “incorporated” under U.S. law, cannot be separated from the whole and must inevitably be reunited with the remaining “unincorporated” Hawaiian territory such as Midway. Truth be told, the French Frigate Shoals appears to be the only territory in the U.S. State of Hawaii that was legitimately claimed by the United States (under the doctrine of discovery and pursuant to the Guano Islands Act). Thus the 50th U.S. state, if any, ought to be limited to that area alone.
lol this guy thinks you can kick 90% of a population out of their homes...Ive seen this one, it ends in war, a war of 90% vs 10%....
@@vmedhe2 Who needs war when you can just let infected visitors freely come into the country and withhold vaccines from your domestic enemies?