HAWAII | America’s Annexed Kingdom 

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.

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.

Thank you so much Farhan.

Haha! Yes. Interestingly, RU-vid 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!

Thank you so much! It really was such a fascinating and tragic story.

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

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

Hawai’I wasn’t annexed and it is a rectifiable matter - see my comment to the professor.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Never and i mean never bring up the C word around an English man😬

@@thetruthSL What? Why?

Thanks a lot. Oops. I changed the title yesterday. The spell check missed it!

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.

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.

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.

Thanks. Yes. I’ve already done a video on Puerto Rico. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6uw3X8JulsA.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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Not for long thanks to Red Hill

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.

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.

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.

@@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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vkhWoFirV7A.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?

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.

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.