Statehood - "we found out we were kidnapped"

This issue is already generating attention for the opposition to statehood this far out, with all the articles on the topic so far as focused on the opposition as on the 'celebration', and there is opportunity for a lot of education as the time approaches. Yesterday, this AP article made it into the San Diego Union-Tribune online.

I like this analogy:

“To me, statehood is not a reason for celebration,” said David Keanu Sai, a University of Hawaii political science lecturer who is preparing a dissertation on Hawaiian sovereignty. “We've been led to believe that we were adopted, and then we found out we were kidnapped.”

Ron Mun, deputy administrator for OHA, is quoted as saying:

“The anniversary would definitely be an opportunity to highlight the Native Hawaiian host culture, the struggles of the Native Hawaiian population and the necessity of returning some form of independence and sovereignty.”

Of course from OHA's perspective he's talking about federal recognition, but look at the language he's using: "independence and sovereignty" —terms that are really nearly synonymous, and do not describe federal recognition. Read the definition of sovereignty. (The article says that OHA wants the bill amended to nominate six representatives to the organizing commission instead of just one.)

Marsha Wienert, Hawaii's tourism liaison:

“There's no question we have to celebrate. But we also have to recognize what actually happened. You need to give those opponents to statehood the ability to voice their opinions.”

Speaking of recognizing what actually happened, the next line at the end of the article is this:

Hawaii's monarchy was overthrown in 1893 when Queen Liliuokalani was deposed. Hawaii functioned as a republic and a territory until 1959, when 94 percent of residents voted for statehood.

Okay, first it fails to mention the admitted U.S. role in the 'overthrow' through an illegal invasion and intervention. Then it fails to mention that although the usurpers called themselves a "republic" in truth they functioned more like an oligarchy, the antithesis of a republic (which tarnished the name of true republicanism in a way that has persisted in Hawaiian consciousness to this day). Finally, it repeats the falsehood that 94 percent of residents voted for statehood. Again, 94% of those who voted voted for statehood, but only about 15% actually voted, and only U.S. citizens, not all residents, were even allowed to vote.

Meanwhile, the editorial in today's Star-Bulletin—"a longtime leader of the statehood movement"—nevertheless calls for the anniversary events to include the voices of those opposed to statehood, and "sensitivity to Hawaiian issues," including the significance of the palace as "the site symbolic of the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy and annexation of the islands by the United States." It also notes that the $250K the administration is requesting won't go very far, and says "Private groups and Hawaii's educational institutions should be encouraged to organize events on their own." You better believe sovereignty proponents have already started...

Update: About 140,000 votes were cast in 1959, out of a population of 642,000, according to the 1960 census, which represents about 22% of the population, although we'd have to dig into the numbers further to know how many were voting age. It would also be interesting to know how many registered voters there were at the time, and how many residents of Hawaii were not allowed to vote because they were not U.S. citizens.

Posted: Fri - March 23, 2007 at 07:28 AM

getBlogName(); > getCategoryName("C1126750129"); >

Statehood - "we found out we were kidnapped"

> >