The Instigator
elemenope
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
distraff
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

The United States should vacate the Kingdom of Hawaii

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
distraff
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/26/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,618 times Debate No: 59255
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

elemenope

Pro

The overthrow in 1893 was illegal[1], as formally acknowledged by U.S. Public Law 103-150.[2] The two insurgent governments that followed were neither de facto nor de jure, but self-proclaimed. In 1898, Hawaii was unilaterally seized by the United States through a congressional joint resolution, not a bilateral treaty of cession. Therefore, Hawaii has never been annexed by the United States, but occupied since August 12, 1898.[4] Despite 61 years of transferring portions of its military and civilian population into the occupied Hawaiian Kingdom, and denationalizing the country's inhabitants--both of which are war crimes under international law[3]--only 35% of eligible voters voted for statehood in 1959.[6] Furthermore, this was not a plebiscite, since it did not offer an independence option, as verified by U.S. Public Law 103-150.[7] The Hawaiian people demand their kingdom and sovereignty back[8], the United States needs to vacate immediately.

"In 1945 Hawaii was placed under Article 73 of the UN Charter, under the administering authority of the United States of America. The United States directly violated the "sacred trust" obligations of this article in their relations with Hawaii. This led to the illegal plebiscite vote in 1959, which was used by the United States as the basis for Hawaii statehood, but which failed to provide the option of independence as required by international law, and only allowed American citizens to vote, including many servicemen and their families who had been stationed in Hawaii as part of the military occupation, and excluding those Native Hawaiians who chose not to integrate into America." [9]

"Queen of Hawaii demands independence from 'US occupiers'. The United States is an illegal occupying force that should hand the 132 islands of Hawaii back to the monarchy overthrown more than a century ago, according to members of a Native Hawaiian sovereignty movement." Reported on 2008. [10]

Here is the following list from http://goo.gl..., which states the 'Hawaiian Kingdom Civil Code'.

Free by Hawaiian Kingdom Civil Code.

  • Animals, birds, bees, intended for improving breeds.
  • Bags and containers (old) returned, when accompanied by certificate of Hawaiian Consul; books printed in Hawaiian.
  • Catechu (see tanning); coals, copper sheathing and all descriptions of sheathing metal.
  • Diplomatic Representatives - All goods imported for their private use and consumption.
  • Foreign Navies - All supplies when imported and used as such. Foreign Whalers - Merchandise imported by them in accordance with the provisions of sections 569 to 573 of the Civil Code.
  • Gold and silver coins.
  • His Majesty - All goods or other articles imported for his use. Hawaiian Government - All goods or articles imported for the use of the several departments of the Government. Hawaiian Whalers - Oil, bone, fish or other products of the sea, being the catch duly registered Hawaiian vessels. Household effects, old and in use, of persons arriving from abroad; also, the effects, not merchandise, of Hawaiian subjects dying abroad.
  • Iron - All pig iron and plate iron of one-eighth of an inch in thickness and upwards.
  • Models of inventions, if not fitted for use; oak bark (see tanning); plants and seeds, when not intended for sale.
  • Philosophical, chemical and other apparatus for the use of schools and colleges.
  • Returned cargo, being merchandise exported to a foreign country and brought back in the same condition as when exported, accompanied by certificates of Hawaiian Consul.
  • Specie, specimens of botany, mineralogy, geology and other natural sciences imported for the use of schools and colleges.
  • Tanning, certain material used in - Oak bark, catechu and other substances containing "tanning" tools of trade; professional books and instruments in actual use of persons from abroad.
  • Yellow metal.

"Native Hawaiians to Federal Government: Give Us Back Our Kingdom", this was reported on July 11th 2014, when the United States yet again tries to push for the Akaka Bill.[11].

Public Meetings in Hawaii – June 23 through July 8
The following information comes from: http://goo.gl...

Oahu

Monday, June 23 -- Honolulu – 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Hawaii State Capitol Auditorium

Monday, June 23 -- Waimanalo – 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Waimanalo Elementary and Intermediate School

Tuesday, June 24 -- Waianae Coast – 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Nanaikapono Elementary School

Wednesday, June 25 -- Kaneohe – 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Heeia Elementary School

Thursday, June 26 -- Kapolei – 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Makakilo Elementary School

Lanai

Friday, June 27 -- Lanai City – 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Lanai Senior Center

Molokai

Saturday, June 28 -- Kaunakakai – 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Kaunakakai Elementary School

Kauai

Monday, June 30 -- Waimea – 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Waimea Neighborhood Center

Tuesday, July 1 -- Kapaa – 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Kapaa Elementary School

Hawaii Island

Wednesday, July 2 -- Hilo – 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Keaukaha Elementary School

Thursday, July 3 -- Waimea – 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Waimea Community Center

Thursday, July 3 -- Kona – 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Kealakehe High School

Maui

Saturday, July 5 -- Hana – 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Hana High and Elementary School

Monday, July 7 -- Lahaina – 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
King Kamehameha III Elementary School

Tuesday, July 8 -- Kahului – 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Pomaikai Elementary School

Indian Country Consultations – July 29 through August 7


Tuesday, July 29 -- Minnesota – 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Mystic Lake Casino Hotel, Prior Lake, MN

Wednesday, July 30 -- South Dakota – 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Rushmore Civic Center, Rapid City, SD

Friday, August 1 -- Washington – 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Tulalip Resort, Seattle, WA

Tuesday, August 5 -- Arizona – 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Talking Stick Resort, Scottsdale, AZ

Thursday, August 7 -- Connecticut – 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Mohegan Sun, Uncasville, CT

"As set forth in the ANPRM, the Department welcomes comments from leaders and members of the Native Hawaiian community and federally recognized Indian tribes, as well as the State of Hawaii, its agencies, other state agencies, and the general public. Attendance at the above-listed consultation meetings is not required for public comment. In addition to the public meetings, comments can be submitted online through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.Regulations.gov beginning later this week, or via U.S. mail, courier, or hand delivery to: Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior, Room 7329, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240 (please use Regulation Identifier Number 1090-AB05 in your message).The public will have 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register to provide comments on this action."

One of the questions to be addressed: Should the Secretary propose an administrative rule that would facilitate the reestablishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community? NOTE: This question says "reestablishment" which would seem to acknowledge that there was once a government to government relationship, i.e. the Kingdom and the United States. Then the question says "relationship with the Native Hawaiian community." There was never a relationship between the United States government and the Native Hawaiian community, so such a relationship cannot be reestablished. The framing of the question simply continues to deny the existence of the Kingdom and the occupation by the United States.

The questions which should be asked are:

1. Why is the Secretary of the Interior coming to Hawai'i to ask questions about sovereignty when the Secretary of State is the proper representative to talk about government to government relations?
2. Having apologized for the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom government, what steps should the United States now take to cease its occupation of the Kingdom and facilitate the restoration of the Hawaiian nation?
3. What should be the timetable for the United States to cease its illegal occupation of the Kingdom?

distraff

Con

My opponent presents an interesting case however the Kingdom of Hawaii itself was formed by the otherthrow of the smaller kingdoms of Oahu, Maui, Molokai, Lanai and began as a dictatorship [1]. The kingdom became a monarchy thanks to the influence of westerners in the nation with a constitution but giving plenty of power to the Monarchy [3].

At the time Hawaii had a significant sugar cane trade and a European and American business class had developed in Hawaii. In 1887 a new constitution was established with the American Base of Pearl Harbor decreasing the power of the monarchy. When queen Liliuokalani came to the thrown in 1891 she refused to recognize the constitution of 1887 and replaced it with a constitution increasing her own authority [3].

In 1893 several local Europeans staged a revolt and overthrew the queen. They created the Republic of Hawaii. President Grover Cleveland actually did not favor the overthrow and requested that the Queen be reestablished under the 1887 constitution. He refused the allow Hawaii to the annexed even when its Republican government favored it. In 1900, the Spanish American War broke out and we needed better access to Pearl Harbor and so we approved annexation [3].

The Republic was not full of saints as their constitution while stripping the Queen of power made voting rights depend on land ownership stripping many natives of the right to vote. Its system basically was based on giving most of the political influence to the Western business class. However, the queen was not a saint either and just wanted more power to herself [2]. So I don't see any good guys in this conflict. The evidence indicates that most Hawaiians did not favor annexation at the time [3].

However comparing the American government vs. the western dominated Hawaii Republican government, and the Queen's monarchy, I can't really say any one of these had very much consent from the people. At the time, the annexation of Hawaii was not in the people's favor but it was not in their disfavor either.

However as time went on, being part of the United States has benefitted Hawaii. This can be seen from data from the CIA factbook. French Polynesia has a GDP Per capita of $22,000, for Cook Islands it is $9,000, Fiji's is $5,000 [4]. Hawaii's GDP per capita is $52,000 easily surpassing even Australia with $43,000 [4,5]. Hawaii has done very well compared to its neighbors with US citizenship. This new wealth means less starvation, less poverty, less death by disease, better education, and longer lives for its people.

The last fact I would like to point out is that even if the take-over of Hawaii was completely illegitimate, it was over 100 years ago and the place has changed. With the strong history of American culture on the island today, it is unlikely that calls for complete independence will be taken seriously by the vast majority of its inhabitants. If my opponent wants change for Hawaii in the form of independence, I would like evidence people there even want it.

1: http://en.wikipedia.org...
2: http://en.wikipedia.org...
3: http://www.history.com...
4: https://www.cia.gov...
5: https://data.hawaii.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
elemenope

Pro

***I am extending my previous arguments.***

"My opponent presents an interesting case however the Kingdom of Hawaii itself was formed by the otherthrow of the smaller kingdoms of Oahu, Maui, Molokai, Lanai and began as a dictatorship. The kingdom became a monarchy thanks to the influence of westerners in the nation with a constitution but giving plenty of power to the Monarchy".

Irrelevant, we are not debating Hawaii's foundation.

"At the time Hawaii had a significant sugar cane trade and a European and American business class had developed in Hawaii. In 1887 a new constitution was established with the American Base of Pearl Harbor decreasing the power of the monarchy. When queen Liliuokalani came to the thrown in 1891 she refused to recognize the constitution of 1887 and replaced it with a constitution increasing her own authority."


Irrelevant, this has nothing to do with the legal status of Hawaii.

"In 1893 several local Europeans staged a revolt and overthrew the queen."

Not true, "January 17. General Interest. On the Hawaiian Islands, a group of American sugar planters under Sanford Ballard Dole overthrow Queen Liliuokalani, the Hawaiian monarch, and establish a new provincial government with Dole as president."[1],

"The Republic was not full of saints as their constitution while stripping the Queen of power made voting rights depend on land ownership stripping many natives of the right to vote. Its system basically was based on giving most of the political influence to the Western business class. However, the queen was not a saint either and just wanted more power to herself. So I don't see any good guys in this conflict. The evidence indicates that most Hawaiians did not favor annexation at the time."

Irrelevant, the annexation and overthrow was illegal, as I've already stated and proved.

"At the time, the annexation of Hawaii was not in the people's favor but it was not in their disfavor either."

Not true, as I have already proved that the majority of Hawaiians are against it, even from the beginning.[2]

"However as time went on, being part of the United States has benefitted Hawaii."

Irrelevant, the United States hasn't been authorized to do so by the Hawaiians, as I have already proved this.

"The last fact I would like to point out is that even if the take-over of Hawaii was completely illegitimate, it was over 100 years ago place has changed"

It doesn't matter. This is still an ongoing issue until the United States vacates.

"With the strong history of American culture on the island today, it is unlikely that calls for complete independence will be taken seriously by the vast majority of its inhabitants."

I have already proved that the majority of Hawaii wants the United States to leave, now that the United States are allowing Hawaiians to vote on this issue.

"If my opponent wants change for Hawaii in the form of independence, I would like evidence people there even want it."

I have already provided you with evidence.

Sources:
[1] http://goo.gl...
[2] http://goo.gl...
distraff

Con

Claim: Foundation of Kingdom of Hawaii is irrelevant.

It is very relevant. The monarchy ruled without the full consent of the governed and makes this government just as illegitimate as the later governments.

Claim: Annexation is illegal

Just because something was against the law in the 1800s does not make it morally wrong. There was a lot wrong with the law back then. My opponent should be comparing the ethics of the Monarchy, the Republic, and the annexation.

While the government that overthrew the monarchy was self-proclaimed so was the monarchy. Did people get to vote for their Queen? While I am sure some illegal things did happen on the American side, the monarchy which ruled the country was not exactly democratic and neither was the move by the Queen to abolish the existing constitution and replace it with a less democratic one.

What should have happened is that we should have demanded that they allow their people to vote on joining us. If we were in 1900 I would have agreed with my opponent and proposed that we leave the nation. However, it is not 1900. It is 2014. Now the population regards itself as American and is no less patriotic than the rest of our great nation. Its joining the union has resulted in a must greater level of prosperity for the nation. So while the ethical groups of its joining us are shaky, overall good has come from it so in retrospect this action is generally good.

Claim: The majority of the people of Hawaii have always been against annexation.

I will agree that in 1898 they were against annexation. My opponent makes the claim that only 35% of Hawaiians voted for statehood. However, according to my opponent's own sources 77% who voted, voted yes and only 5% only 8,000 individuals voted no with 18% abstaining and voting on different issues. This 35% number erroneously includes all those who decided not to vote. By that measure, since only half of eligible voters vote in US elections, no recent president has gotten more than 35% of the vote of eligible voters.

Even if this 35% number is correct in 1959, this feeling does not represent the Hawaii of today which is a much different place. Hawaiians are just as patriotic as other Americans and there is no evidence that a majority of them want to leave the union. If my opponent wants to kick them out the union can some data be presented showing that they even want it?

I would totally support letting Hawaii vote on secession right now and I am confident they will vote overwhelmingly against it like any other state would. Let them decide for themselves. Don't just vacate them without their consent.
Debate Round No. 2
elemenope

Pro

"It is very relevant. The monarchy ruled without the full consent of the governed and makes this government just as illegitimate as the later governments"

You have provided no evidence of this. It was the Queen LiliE9;uokalani wrote the draft 1893 constitution. "In 1891, LiliE9;uokalani ascended the throne. In 1892, she backed measures in the kingdom's legislature to amend or rewrite the constitution. However, the measures failed as they had during the reign of her brother. Among the measures that failed was an amendment that would lower the property requirement to vote so most of the general public could vote. When that was voted down, many Hawaiian citizens protested."[1] Though I still don't see how this is relevant, you are acting as if the Queen was some tyrant, "In 1895, an abortive attempt by Hawaiian royalists to restore Queen LiliE9;uokalani to power resulted in the queen's arrest. She was forced to sign a document of abdication that relinquished all her future claims to the throne. Following this, she was subject to a public trial before a military tribunal in her former throne room. Convicted of having knowledge of a royalist plot, LiliE9;uokalani was fined $5000 and sentenced to five years in prison and hard labor."[2] As I have stated, and proved, this has nothing to do with "The monarchy ruled without the full consent of the governed and makes this government just as illegitimate as the later governments." As the 1893 Constitution was voted down, but not by the Monarchy. We are debating the legal status of the "State of Hawaii", not the legal status of Hawaii, either way though, Hawaii is fine.

"Just because something was against the law in the 1800s does not make it morally wrong. There was a lot wrong with the law back then. My opponent should be comparing the ethics of the Monarchy, the Republic, and the annexation."

Suppose someone stole your car, forged documents and sold it to someone else. Does that new "owner" own the car? Suppose the new "owner" then gave it to someone else. Does that new, new "owner" own the car? Now suppose the original thief confesses to the crime about how he unlawfully obtained (stole) the car. Who owns the car now? Is it the person most recently in possession of the car, or you, the person from whom it was initially stolen? Of course, according to common sense and common law, the answer is: You! Since the title of the car never lawfully changed hands to anyone else, you are still the lawful owner. I do not need to compare anything about the Monarchy, and the annexation and the republic established by Americans.

"Did people get to vote for their Queen?"

The Kingdom of Hawaii does not have an elective monarchy[3], but simply an hereditary monarchy[4]. So the simple answer is, no.
But I don't see how this is relevant.

"What should have happened is that we should have demanded that they allow their people to vote on joining us. If we were in 1900 I would have agreed with my opponent and proposed that we leave the nation."

I appreciate you agreeing with me, Con.

"However, it is not 1900. It is 2014. Now the population regards itself as American and is no less patriotic than the rest of our great nation. Its joining the union has resulted in a must greater level of prosperity for the nation. So while the ethical groups of its joining us are shaky, overall good has come from it so in retrospect this action is generally good."

The Hawaiian population certainly does not regard itself as "American", nor does the Hawaiians want anything to do with the tyrants in the Kingdom of Hawaii as I have already proved.

"I will agree that in 1898 they were against annexation. My opponent makes the claim that only 35% of Hawaiians voted for statehood. However, according to my opponent's own sources 77% who voted, voted yes and only 5% only 8,000 individuals voted no with 18% abstaining and voting on different issues. This 35% number erroneously includes all those who decided not to vote. By that measure, since only half of eligible voters vote in US elections, no recent president has gotten more than 35% of the vote of eligible voters."

"I'm sorry, but what was voted on? Why was the option of independence not on the ballot? Violating the obligations under the UN Charter, a treaty agreement and "supreme law of the land" under Article VI Section 2 of the US Constitution, is also a violation of the US Constitution itself. The United States government did not uphold their "sacred trust obligation." The vote for statehood was not a valid exercise of self-determination and decolonization and has no validity in international law. Any U.S. citizen who had resided in the islands for a year was allowed to vote, which included large numbers of American military servicemen and their families, who were essentially the occupation force that had illegally held Hawaii since the admittedly unlawful annexation in 1898. Native Hawaiians would not have been allowed to vote if they refused to become American citizens. Immigrants from other countries who were not American citizens were not allowed to vote."[5]

"Even if this 35% number is correct in 1959, this feeling does not represent the Hawaii of today which is a much different place. Hawaiians are just as patriotic as other Americans and there is no evidence that a majority of them want to leave the union. If my opponent wants to kick them out the union can some data be presented showing that they even want it?"

Again, I will provide you proof that the Hawaiians want the United States to vacate.[6]

"I would totally support letting Hawaii vote on secession right now"

I appreciate you agreeing with me, Con. Yet when are you going to dispute the legal status of the "State of Hawaii", this is about the United States needing to vacate.

Conclusion: So far Con has done nothing but debate the history of Hawaii, make false claims without backing them up, and has agreed with me. I urge Con to dispute the legal status of the "State of Hawaii", if Con cannot do this, then it's clear that the United States has been illegally occupying a country and needs to vacate.

"At the close of World War I, the Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties classified the following types of war crimes capable of being committed by military and civilians (American Journal of International Law, vol. 14, p. 114 (1920)):"[7]

  1. Usurpation of sovereignty during occupation;
  2. Deportation of civilians;
  3. Compulsory enlistment of soldiers among the inhabitants of occupied territory;
  4. Denationalizing the inhabitants of occupied territory;
  5. Confiscation of property;
  6. Exaction of illegitimate or of exorbitant contributions and requisitions;
  7. Wanton devastation and destruction of religious, charitable, educational and historical buildings and monuments.

Sources:
[1] http://goo.gl...

[2] http://goo.gl...
[3] http://goo.gl...
[4] http://goo.gl...
[5] http://goo.gl...
[6] http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl...
[7] http://goo.gl...
distraff

Con

Claim: You have provided no evidence of this [monarchy ruled without the full consent of the governed and makes this government just as illegitimate as the later governments]

I regard all forms of government that does not derive itself from the consent of the governed as illegitimate. The queen ruled without an election by the people so I do not feel any sorrow or disagreement if she is deposed.

Property requirement

It is true that the queen wanted a smaller property requirement so more natives could vote for people on the legislature. But at the same time she wanted to increase her own power relative to the legislature so really she was not necessarily in favor of more power to the people [1].

Claim: Though I still don't see how this is relevant, you are acting as if the Queen was some tyrant

She tried to overthrow the constitution when she could not get it amended legally. What she was trying to do was illegal and violated the power of the legislature [1]. That reduces the legitimacy she has.

Car analogy

The problem with this analogy is that the people of Hawaii are not property like the car is. Sure they were ruled by a Queen but that does make this rule legitimate. Today, the car (people of Hawaii) do not want independence so there is no reason to give it back to the illegitimate previous owner (the Monarchy).

Claim: The Hawaiian population certainly does not regard itself as "American", nor does the Hawaiians want anything to do with the tyrants in the Kingdom of Hawaii as I have already proved.

I would like my opponent to back up the claim that the population does not regard itself as American.

Why was the option of independence not on the ballot?

Probably because such a measure was not seriously being considered given this was at a time when 95% of those who did vote on the Statehood measure voted yes.

The vote for statehood was not a valid exercise of self-determination and decolonization and has no validity in international law.

We talked about this. Just because something is against international law does not mean it is wrong. I prefer to follow the laws of this nation not international law if we are to dogmatically stick to a purely legal way of thinking about morality.

Any U.S. citizen who had resided in the islands for a year was allowed to vote, which included large numbers of American military servicemen and their families... Native Hawaiians would not have been allowed to vote if they refused to become American citizens. Immigrants from other countries who were not American citizens were not allowed to vote.

Since Hawaii was a territory when the vote was cast, if you were an American citizen you could vote. All you needed to do was have the minimum time of residency to have a say. This system seems to be biased but it was based on the assumption that Hawaii had legitimately become a territory. You need to be an american citizen to vote and that it why it was set up the way it was.

If there was so much passion against statehood why wasn't there a greater effort on the part of the natives to get the vote out and get more than just 8,000 to say no? Out of 381,000 eligible voters, only 8,000 showed up and voted no. That is only 2%. Now how many of these people also did not want us to be a territory and wanted complete independence? Even less. Hawaii was only 31% Caucasian with 23% born out of state. If they wanted independence so much, far more than 8,000 would have showed up to vote no.

Claim: Again, I will provide you proof that the Hawaiians want the United States to vacate.[6]

Please present the proof in text rather than just listing three references. The first reference only gives accounts of meetings of a few hundred activists who want Hawaiian independence. No polling data or proof is given that a majority want this.

The second was a news article that argues for independence but nothing else. Since I was not a member of the site I could not read the article further. The third was another opinion piece that briefly mentioned meetings about independence. No evidence for majority consent is given.

So far Con has done nothing but debate the history of Hawaii, make false claims without backing them up, and has agreed with me.

I did not make false claims. My claims are backed up by my sources. I did more than just debate history. I also argued that there is no evidence that Hawaiians today want independence and being part of the US has benefited Hawaii. I agreed that annexing Hawaii in 1900 was the wrong thing to do but that does not mean I think we should abandon them today.

Claim: I urge Con to dispute the legal status of the "State of Hawaii", if Con cannot do this, then it's clear that the United States has been illegally occupying a country and needs to vacate.

I am not a lawyer. My political opinions come from morality and reason not just through legal interpretations. If there is no evidence Hawaiians want to leave, I do not care what your legal interpretation is. Hawaii stays.

Hawaiian Opinion

In 1959, only 8,000 people voted against statehood and if they wanted independence so much they should have gotten far more votes out of 400,000 eligible voters. 55 years later Hawaiians are even split over whether tribes there should get legal recognition. Native Hawaiians only comprise 10-20% of the population there and that is where most of the small support for independence lies (3).

When I google Hawaii independence I only find a few mainstream stories about some supporters for it, and private websites advocating it. I don't see any evidence of this overwhelming support for independence or any major demonstrations. If the majority of the people in a US state really wanted independence I would expect to find a lot more news coverage or even private coverage about it but I only find information about some meetings between a few hundred people.

With all the 4th of July shows and the attendance these events have I seriously doubt these people want independence (4). This next article references the 4th of July crowds (5). Their 4th of July celebrations are huge. Hawaii is #3 in military recruitment rate in the nation (6). Seriously Hawaii is just another normal state that is just as patriotic if not more. They join the army, celebrate independence day, and vote like everyone else.

My opponent has provided no evidence the majority of Hawaiian's want independence and this proof would exist if the majority of them wanted it. We would be hearing a lot more about it.

Counter-resolution: Let them vote

My opponent's argues for withdrawal and did not mention this withdrawal being conditional on a vote in the resolution or any arguments. It is unfair to throw a state out of the union because of events 116 years ago without the consent of the people of the state.

I propose to let them vote on secession. Of course this ballot will fail by a wide margin just like an independence resolution would get destroyed in Kansas. I actually talked to an Asian friend from Hawaii about this and he said that nobody wants independence and does not know of anybody who is talking about it. That is how small support for this measure really is.

1: http://www.history.com...
2: http://statehoodhawaii.org...
3: http://www.washingtontimes.com...
4: http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com...
5: http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com...
6: http://www.statemaster.com...
Debate Round No. 3
elemenope

Pro

"I regard all forms of government that does not derive itself from the consent of the governed as illegitimate. The queen ruled without an election by the people so I do not feel any sorrow or disagreement if she is deposed."

Your opinions are irrelevant to this debate. You clearly don't understand how Monarchy works.

"It is true that the queen wanted a smaller property requirement so more natives could vote for people on the legislature. But at the same time she wanted to increase her own power relative to the legislature so really she was not necessarily in favor of more power to the people"

Again, your opinions are irrelevant to this debate.

"She tried to overthrow the constitution when she could not get it amended legally. What she was trying to do was illegal and violated the power of the legislature. That reduces the legitimacy she has."

I have read the link you provided me, and it states
"Kalakaua’s sister, Liliuokalani, took the throne upon his death in 1891 and soon began working on a replacement to the Bayonet Constitution that would restore the monarch’s power and give only Hawaiian subjects the right to vote. After failing to get her new constitution through the legislature, Liliuokalani planned to enact it by royal fiat on January 14, 1893. Although she ended up deferring action on the advice of her handpicked cabinet, 13 men of American, British and German descent became so concerned about their future business and political prospects that they met at a Honolulu law office and arranged to depose her."

The Queen tried to give the Hawaiian subjects the right to vote, but failed when it came to the legislature,
so she give her
"authoritative decree, sanction, and order: a royal fiat."[1] I do not see any problem here, the legislature clearly didn't want the Hawaiian subjects to be given the right to vote... The Queen did the right thing. Though I don't see how this is relevant to the legal status of the "State of Hawaii".

"The problem with this analogy is that the people of Hawaii are not property like the car is. Sure they were ruled by a Queen but that does make this rule legitimate. Today, the car (people of Hawaii) do not want independence so there is no reason to give it back to the illegitimate previous owner (the Monarchy)."

Again, I have already provided you with the fact that the Hawaiians do want independence. The country is property to the the Hawaiians, not to the United States. These are clear reasons you are trying to deny.

"I would like my opponent to back up the claim that the population does not regard itself as American."

Are you just going to ignore the fact that the Hawaiians have demanded the United States to give back their kingdom and sovereignty when the United States recently asked them for their vote on this issue? I have provided you proof with this....

"Probably because such a measure was not seriously being considered given this was at a time when 95% of those who did vote on the Statehood measure voted yes."

How many times do I have to repeat myself?
The United States overthrow the Queen Liliuokalani, and for what is seen as a prolonged military occupation beginning in 1898 with the annexation of the Republic of Hawaii to the United States, and continuing until the present day. The movement generally views both the overthrow and annexation as illegal, and holds the U.S. government responsible for these actions. The historical and legal basis for these claims is one of considerable dispute.

"We talked about this. Just because something is against international law does not mean it is wrong. I prefer to follow the laws of this nation not international law if we are to dogmatically stick to a purely legal way of thinking about morality."

If something is against international law, like invading a country and its sovereignty, does not mean it's wrong?! Your laughable statement is irrelevant to this debate.


"Please present the proof in text rather than just listing three references. The first reference only gives accounts of meetings of a few hundred activists who want Hawaiian independence. No polling data or proof is given that a majority want this."

This is not up for public polling, this is between the United States and the Hawaiians, and all the Hawaiians spoke. I have already proved this.... Yet you seem to disregard this.

"The second was a news article that argues for independence but nothing else. Since I was not a member of the site I could not read the article further. The third was another opinion piece that briefly mentioned meetings about independence. No evidence for majority consent is given."

You clearly didn't read the news articles.
"Native Hawaiians to Federal Government: Give Us Back Our Kingdom", this seems clear to me. In fact, the statement itself is evidence. Feel free to read up on this.

"I did not make false claims. My claims are backed up by my sources. I did more than just debate history. I also argued that there is no evidence that Hawaiians today want independence and being part of the US has benefited Hawaii. I agreed that annexing Hawaii in 1900 was the wrong thing to do but that does not mean I think we should abandon them today."

Yes you did make false claims: Here are the following claims that I have successfully disputed:
"At the time, the annexation of Hawaii was not in the people's favor but it was not in their disfavor either.", "With the strong history of American culture on the island today, it is unlikely that calls for complete independence will be taken seriously by the vast majority of its inhabitants.", "If my opponent wants change for Hawaii in the form of independence, I would like evidence people there even want it." Your claims were false, and some of them you didn't even bother to back up.

"I am not a lawyer. My political opinions come from morality and reason not just through legal interpretations. If there is no evidence Hawaiians want to leave, I do not care what your legal interpretation is. Hawaii stays."

I have already proved that the Hawaiians want the United States to vacate their country. You may not care of the legal facts about Hawaii, but you have no right to continue on saying I'm wrong when I'm the one providing facts here. The simple fact is, the United States invaded a country, made Americans vote on it becoming a state, and denied the Hawaiians to have any say.
21,269 Native Hawaiians petitioned annexation.[2] The Hawaiian annexation was illegitimate, it's simple as that.

"In 1959, only 8,000 people voted against statehood and if they wanted independence so much they should have gotten far more votes out of 400,000 eligible voters. 55 years later Hawaiians are even split over whether tribes there should get legal recognition. Native Hawaiians only comprise 10-20% of the population there and that is where most of the small support for independence lies."

I'm getting tired of repeating myself. "Any U.S. citizen who had resided in the islands for a year was allowed to vote, which included large numbers of American military servicemen and their families, who were essentially the occupation force that had illegally held Hawaii since the admittedly unlawful annexation in 1898. Native Hawaiians would not have been allowed to vote if they refused to become American citizens. Immigrants from other countries who were not American citizens were not allowed to vote." The statehood vote, both in terms of the question asked and the people who were allowed to vote, was in no way a valid act of self-determination, and did not legitimize the occupation. Hawaii has never legally been a state of the United States. The option of independence for Hawaii exists to this day, and the voices supporting this option are growing steadily.... I HAVE ALREADY PROVED THIS. Did the Hawaiians vote on this? No, it was the Americans who voted on this.


My opponent is free to read updates about this issue: https://www.facebook.com...

Conclusion:
My opponent has made false claims, has refused to accept my sources of how the Hawaiians want the United States to leave, he has refused to debate the main point of this debate: The legal status of the "State of Hawaii". As I have proved the Kingdom of Hawaii should be vacated by the Americans as these UN resolutions clearly indicate that independence was not only an option at the time, it was the primary option under international principles and the fundamental inalienable right to self-determination, and specifically with regard to non-self-governing territories under article 73 of the UN Charter. Not only was the option of independence not on the ballot, it was not even discussed, while statehood was actively propogandized with public funds, and American political ideals were indoctrinated through the schools. In truth it was the United States' obligation to fully inform the Hawaiian people and assist in the attainment of the goal of independence, not to extend their manifest destiny thousands miles across international waters. Violating the obligations under the UN Charter, a treaty agreement and "supreme law of the land" under Article VI Section 2 of the US Constitution, is also a violation of the US Constitution itself. The United States government did not uphold their "sacred trust obligation. The vote for statehood was not a valid exercise of self-determination and decolonization and has no validity in international law. It's a shame that Con could only debate history and his opinions, yet refused to answer any of my arguments about the legal status.

Sources:
[1] http://goo.gl...
[2] http://goo.gl...







distraff

Con

Pro: You clearly don't understand how Monarchy works.

I know how it works very well. There is a hereditary monarch who shares power with an elected legislature. The monarch with all her power is not elected by the people and so represents herself not the people. People deserve the right to choose who to lead them.

Pro: Again, your opinions are irrelevant to this debate.

They are very relevant. I am con.

Pro: The Queen tried to give the Hawaiian subjects the right to vote, but failed when it came to the legislature, so she give her "authoritative decree, sanction, and order: a royal fiat."[1] I do not see any problem here, the legislature clearly didn't want the Hawaiian subjects to be given the right to vote... The Queen did the right thing. Though I don't see how this is relevant to the legal status of the "State of Hawaii".

Expanded voting rights was not the only thing she wanted and was not her main objective. Her main objective and the main topic of her new constitution was expanded power for the monarch (herself). Her power at the time was reduced to almost that of a figurehead so trying to replace the constitution without the consent of the legislature is clearly illegal. Replacing the constitution without any constitutional authority gives the constitution no meaning if it can be so blatantly violated. She was clearly a dangerous threat to the republican government.

Pro: Again, I have already provided you with the fact that the Hawaiians do want independence. The country is property to the the Hawaiians, not to the United States.

I will go over my arguments as to why most Hawaiians don't want independence again later in this debate.

Pro: Are you just going to ignore the fact that the Hawaiians have demanded the United States to give back their kingdom and sovereignty when the United States recently asked them for their vote on this issue? I have provided you proof with this....

Just because a small group of people want independence does not mean a majority does. I would like evidence that a majority does.

Pro: The United States overthrow the Queen Liliuokalani

The overthrow was with our help but they did have 1,000 riflemen of their own. The group that led the overthrow was part of the business class of Hawaii not the US. We later condemned their action.

Pro: If something is against international law, like invading a country and its sovereignty, does not mean it's wrong?! Your laughable statement is irrelevant to this debate.

We did not invade Hawaii. There was an internal revolution with a small amount of American support. The American representative responsible was later fired and the action condemned by the US government. Hawaii was still independent as the Republic of Hawaii after the Queen was overthrown.

Pro: This is not up for public polling, this is between the United States and the Hawaiians, and all the Hawaiians spoke. I have already proved this.... Yet you seem to disregard this.

If a majority of Hawaiians, or in your opinions all Hawaiians want independence, their newspapers and civic organizations would have conducted many polls asking them about this. But since this is a minority movement I cannot even find polling data about this. If such data exists, it is the responsibility of my opponent to present it. Where are the major organizations in Hawaii demanding independence?

Sure there are a few meetings and marches by a few natives but where is the national furor and coverage that would exist? I tried to do a google trend of Hawaii independence and I did get some volume but only a little bit and only really after 2008. There was not enough volume to get detailed information about related searches (1) .

Puerto Rico has some support for independence and there is plenty of local media attention on the topic and even US attention. For example, according to a suffox opinion poll in a choice between independence and statehood, 70% chose statehood and only 14% chose independence (2). If even that support existed in Hawaii we should expect more polls and coverage.

Since Hawaii is better known than Puero Rico because it is a state, and if it actually had a solid majority supporting independence we should expect to see far more polling and coverage about Hawaiian independence than Puero Rican independence. Instead we see the opposite.

You clearly didn't read the news articles. "Native Hawaiians to Federal Government: Give Us Back Our Kingdom", this seems clear to me. In fact, the statement itself is evidence. Feel free to read up on this.

A title is not proof of anything. A statistically significant polling result is.

Yes you did make false claims: Here are the following claims that I have successfully disputed: "At the time, the annexation of Hawaii was not in the people's favor but it was not in their disfavor either.", "With the strong history of American culture on the island today, it is unlikely that calls for complete independence will be taken seriously by the vast majority of its inhabitants.", "If my opponent wants change for Hawaii in the form of independence, I would like evidence people there even want it."

The queen ruled without a vote from most of the people, and neither did the later government. I do not see how the people were harmed. Hawaii grew to be the most prosperous nation in the Pacific.

This movement has very little support. See my previous arguments: Lack of media coverage, Media coverage of Puero Rican independence but not Hawaii, patriotism during the 4th of July, no local polling data, and 3rd highest military recruitment rate. Plus no evidence is given that a majority favor independence.

The simple fact is, the United States invaded a country, made Americans vote on it becoming a state, and denied the Hawaiians to have any say. 21,269 Native Hawaiians petitioned annexation.

We did not invade Hawaii as stated before. Hawaiians who were American citizens had a say in the election.

The statehood vote, both in terms of the question asked and the people who were allowed to vote, was in no way a valid act of self-determination, and did not legitimize the occupation.

It was not a good vote of self-determination I agree but even so you would expect more than 2% of eligible voters to vote against statehood if 40% of the Island consisted of eligible voters and support for independence was so overwhelming. That was the point I was trying to make.

Conclusion and points missed.

My opponent failed to address many of my arguments including the suspicious lack of polling data, and did not address the high recruitment rate, large 4th of July celebrations, only 10-20% natives, statehood being beneficial to Hawaii, and putting independence on the ballot instead of just leaving.

If my opponent's arguments that the majority want statehood is convincing for some reason, then why not just put statehood on the ballot instead of just leaving. Just leaving violated the will of the Hawaiian people. Let them choose.

1: http://www.google.com...
2: http://www.latinorebels.com...
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by elemenope 3 years ago
elemenope
"The vast majority of native Hawaiians who testified were indignant, and even outraged, that the federal government would try to insert itself or side with any native Hawaiian faction vying to take power away from other Hawaiians by officially organizing and negotiating," according to the Hawaii Reporter.

"When you boil it down, the Kingdom of Hawaii was never formally abolished. Under international law, an annexation of a sovereign state must be accomplished through a treaty or an agreement between the two parties. Hawaii"s annexation by the United States was executed through a joint resolution by Congress, which was legally questionable under international law, according to sovereignty supporters."

Report today, at 3:40 PM ET.

http://www.govexec.com...
Posted by elemenope 3 years ago
elemenope
You must be mentally challenged because I have already proved you are wrong, but August 7th is the last day so I will comment on this on that date when the results are in...... Hawaiians will decline federal recognition.
Posted by distraff 3 years ago
distraff
Bad analogy. Hawaiians want to stay in the union.
Posted by elemenope 3 years ago
elemenope
"Your car is stolen. The person who stole the car later apologizes and offers you a bicycle." http://www.civilbeat.com... LOL
Posted by elemenope 3 years ago
elemenope
This was reported today... http://www.civilbeat.com... They have absolutely no jurisdiction whatsoever to get involved in Hawaiian matters and they also have no jurisdiction over the lands the feds occupies. I'm so glad 97% disagrees with the DOI's perpetuation of fraud. It's time to pay their rent.
Posted by elemenope 3 years ago
elemenope
Con, will you please clarify this for me?

"If my opponent's arguments that the majority want statehood is convincing for some reason, then why not just put statehood on the ballot instead of just leaving. Just leaving violated the will of the Hawaiian people. Let them choose."

I'm a bit confused on this because I've been arguing against statehood, the fact that US Marines invaded Hawaii (look it up) is sickening to me, I would never back statehood, nor would the Hawaiians as I proved. But indeed, there's not much polling data, though the United States fairly *recently* asked them to vote on this issue and they did, the majority does back independence so I am also confused on why you don't consider this as evidence.
Posted by jackh4mm3r 3 years ago
jackh4mm3r
...I agree.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
elemenopedistraffTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: In R2 pro revealed that she thinks this is 1897 (her second source that round, claiming it's current). Really it can all be summarized with one point, as stated by Con "being part of the United States has benefitted Hawaii." Benefit to the Hawaiian people, which pro insists is "Irrelevant" Pro is surprisingly opposed to the well being of the Hawaiian people. Whereas con offered the simple idea of letting them vote on said issue rather than forcing it on them... Conduct for Pro trying to post extra debate rounds in comment section (the first one was fine, the follow ups without anyone replying stand as a clear attempt at cheating).
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
elemenopedistraffTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro didn't really do that good of rebuttals in order to fill his BoP
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
elemenopedistraffTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: A: US "occupation" is non-military and democratic, VS an unelected monarchy. B: "Occupation" has popular consent. C: GDP/capita bump.
Vote Placed by Preston 3 years ago
Preston
elemenopedistraffTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided more reliable sources in total, But I feel that they didn't fulfill BOP thus con gets arguments.