Hawaii has a very interesting history with lots of twists and turns. What do you think about it? Should Hawaii remain a state within the United States of America? Also, what state should we cover next?
Deoccupy hawaii. If a government has to apologize for the illegal overthrow of the monarchy, the illegal annexation of our aina, and not letting native Hawaiians vote on statehood unless they agreed to be a or were an American citizen then maybe the American government should get the fuck out. Many native Hawaiians that did vote voted against statehood but any American citizen that had lived in hawaii for at least a year could vote, and since the majority of people in hawaii were migrant workers or military personnel and their dependents of course they voted to make us american.
Gotta agree with jackson. If a vote should be held, it should be held by native Hawaiians only. With the vote perverted by an overwhelming caucasian American population it should be obvious to anyone how the vote goes. Oh the dangers of uncontrolled immigration! But the whole idea of secession via historical claims, brings with it a very interesting, potentially dangerous, precedent for ALL indigenous peoples. What happens when the Cherokee, or Navajo decide they can do the same thing? Or the confederate states for that matter? Although an interesting, and seemingly fair, proposal. Regression is rarely the proper course.
@Doctor Atari so how exactly is any sovereign country supposed to defend it's culture if anybody that enters gets a vote? Look no further than California for an example. What's Cali gonna look like in 10-20 years if illegal immigrants get to vote? In case you have you have the foresight of a democrat, it's gonna look exactly like MEXICO! DUH! Allowing an invasive culture into a sovereign territory will ALWAYS end with the destruction of native culture. Just as an aside, the fact that you immediately go to "RACIST!" as your defense tells me where you really stand on an intellectual debate, like national sovereignty.
@Doctor Atari ponder this question please. If non citizens were allowed to vote here in America, what's to stop China from sending 500,000,000 people over here to vote us into a Chinese dictatorship? THAT'S what happened to Hawaii. American involvement in Hawaii's politics voted a sovereign nation out of existence. Is that fair or not? Hawaiian's want to return to their cultural and political past. So if Americans get a vote, how would it ever be a fair vote?
Octodaddy Hawaii is too important for strategic naval placement, if America leaves the Chinese would probably try and take it to have more leverage over the United States because if ever a conflict or World war 3, China could strike North America very easily. Between Russia, China or the United States, who do you prefer has the biggest stick in the yard?
@@DrSho USA is better with Hawaii. Hawaii has become a military target for other nations like North Korea. Look up the Turpee Resolution of 1894 that all the other countries that had treaties with Hawaii were warned by USA not to interfere in the USA plans for Hawaii to be taken over.
As someone who has visited Maui and experienced the divine aura of that place for myself, I can see why the natives value it so much. It's an isolated paradise. Frankly, if some sort of movement happened that returned all the locals' sovereign land to them and all us whities were kicked out, I would support it. It's quite valuable and special out there.
King Kamehameha the V did name a successor, Princess Pauahi, but she declined because she wanted to do other things for her native people. Forming Kamehameha Schools.
You did a decent general job in covering what you could but there are ALOT of important things that you left out. Hawai’i was the first country to offer her citizens universal healthcare with Queen’s hospital. Also, the Queen did NOT “officially” abdicate her throne as you say. She CONDITIONALLY abdicated her throne under the CONDITION that the US restore the power back to the Hawaiian government when the illegalities of the overthrow are found out. Those illegalities are being realized today with the uncovering of our Hawaiian language newspapers and understanding of the true political history of Hawai’i. Also, despite what we learned in western textbooks, Hawai’i was never annexed. Only a joint resolution exists which is merely a US law that says Hawai’i was annexed. But as we all know, laws from a country has no power over another country. Also we now know that the ballot in 1959 is illegal due to it withholding options on the ballot. All of these missing pieces are important because what we are realizing is that Hawai’i is not legally a US state but a “sovereign nation state in continuity under a form of US occupation due to military occupation and fraudulent annexation” as stated by a UN official last year. It seems from your comments that people are touching on this but I suggest to you, if you truly care about the real history of Hawai’i and not some watered down, Western view regurgitated from Wikipedia, look up Dr Keanu Sai and Dr Ron Williams Jr. That’s a good start
My friend, just because you say something is so, doesn't mean it is. Hawai'i wasn't the first country to offer universal healthcare. Germany was the first nation to start the process in 1883, the UK followed in 1911. For clarification, building a hospital in Honolulu, even if it did provide free medical services to the people of Oahu (which there is no evidence it did) did not provide universal healthcare to the people of the rest of the islands. The hospital was mainly funded and staffed by people of european ancestry, yet another contribution they made to the islands. Building hospitals through public and private funding had been going on for many years prior to the Queen's being built in 1858, so it can't even claim a first there. Why is it so important to claim first to this or the first to that? Doing so erroneously just weakens any point you are trying to make. To address some other points in your post: The overthrow of any government, however corrupt or non representative is illegal. The overthrow of the British in America was illegal, the overthrow of the French government in Canada was illegal, the Confederacy of States was illegal as was the freeing of enslave black Americans by abolitionists, the overthrow of the Vichy government in France was illegal, the overthrow of Fascism in Italy and the hanging of Mussolini was illegal. So yes, the overthrow of the Queen's corrupt government was illegal, as was her attempt, years previous to overthrow her brother when he was king with the assistance of Wilcox, who by the way, was as much of european ancestry as polynesian. Her reign was characterized by her desire to restore power over all, to a minority of one, herself. At no point in history, has absolute monarchy been a good idea. The Great Mahele, instituted when the Kingdom of Hawai'i was ruled primarily by ethnic Hawaiians, automatically granted one third of all the land to the ruling family, one third of all land to the Ali'i, and left potentially one third of the land to common people, if they were cultivating it and tenured on it. Those plots were small and couldn't accommodate inheritance by multiple children, whereas the land designated for royals and ali'i were much larger plots with fewer people to inherit it. Another provision of the Kuleana Clause, was it eliminated the right to the use of common land, by common people, for pasturage, harvesting or cultivation. Any objective person would likely conclude that isn't a very fair distribution of resources. Added to that fact was a couple of things that made it difficult for people to actually gain title to property. It required a land survey, which cost cash money, something only the royal family and a'li'i had access to. It also required people to be able to read and write, which leads us to another contradiction of modern claims: namely that Hawaii had the highest literacy rates among nations of that era, yet the common people couldn't read or write well enough to claim land, or that they were too ignorant of land ownership to do so. In the first case, it can't be both at the same time. In the later case, it is just insulting to insist that people as intelligent as Hawaiians were and are, didn't understand land ownership. The royal family and ali'i certainly did and profited it from it since time immemorial. The Kapu system among other things governed who could use what land and how, the benefits of which where inheritable, not much of a stretch to land ownership, is it? Even if you want to insist that common Hawaiians were too ignorant to claim their land, why didn't the royal family and ali'i help their people do so? The simple answer is, they were more interested in remaining the dominant people of the islands as they had been historically, explicitly at the expense of the common people. After the formation of the Republic of Hawai'i, a government recognized by all the current nations of the time, a push was made for annexation. Contrary to popular modern belief, this annexation was supported by ethnic Hawaiian's including the famous Wilcox. Yes there were ethnic Hawaiians that opposed this move, and they were directly associated with the royal party. Ethnic Hawaiians continued to support annexation by the US and statehood as well. The first time the annexation was brought before the US Senate it failed to obtain the 3/4 majority it needed mainly because of Southern US Democrats who were notorious racist bigots. There was another legislative process of annexation that only required a simple majority. This process was easily achieved and Hawaii became a territory of the US. At which point everyone in Hawaii, became a US citizen with all the rights and protections associated with such a designation, including representation in Washington DC by, wait for it... good old Wilcox. In the time that Hawaii lost its kingdom there were approximately 30,000 ethnic Hawaiians, as opposed to 560,000 who now claim ethnic Hawaiian ancestry. Which puts it right back up to pre contact populations. Those are not the numbers or a trend of a people oppressed, held down and deprived. The Kamehameha School system or KSBE is the richest private school in the US with an 11 billion endowment. The next closest school is Philips Exeter at only 900 million. It is the 10 largest charitable organization in the world, yes the entire world, devoted exclusively to ethnic Hawaiians. Food for thought, no?
@Kekela au contraire mon ami, je suis viens d'Hawaii. But I agree that we do have a very different perspective on the importance of where you are from. Xenophobia, chauvinism, racism etc, despite whatever brief success they might have, will always be on the losing side of history.
@J Denmark are u fcking insane Native Hawaiians in no way supported annexation a census was taken after the overthrow which included almost everybody in the islands I have even found my own ancestors who signed and the majority did not support annexation what fcking evidence do u have to say that we supported annexation Hawaiians protested for decades and we still do and how can u call the last Queen Corrupt every politician is corrupts to a degree however she deeply cared for her people the only reason why we are stuck with United States is that Congress was full a racist I think u need to dive deeper into Hawaiian history and come to realize that many Hawaiians do in fact feel as if everything they had was violated and taken from them and to a degree that’s true the culture was practically illegal even though the amount of people who claim to be native Hawaiian is larger then before (this includes myself) the number of pure native Hawaiians are in free fall and the decline in the language that is 100% as result of a culture that is oppressed and in regards to the Great Mahele a native Hawaiian had to option to own land or the live on Ali’i land however I am pretty sure Crown Lands were only for royals and since many Hawaiians never fully understood the concept of owning land this led to rich white people to buy extremely large amounts of land which led to greater exploitation of Hawaiians even my family land was taken and it’s took years in court over the past few decades to get the land back And lastly I graduated from Kamehameha Schools and what was the point of mentioning it I can tell u from experience that KS lightly pushes the idea of greater political freedom for Hawaiian and the school has done things that can be considered borderline Anti-American in fact the school does not even recognize Hawai’i statehood day instead choosing the day that the UK France and the United States recognized The Hawaiian kingdom as legitimate overall your argument sounds like a bunch of bullshit and I could care less if u live in Hawai’i because what u said most Native Hawaiians would disagree with
This was a good overview of what happened and I appreciate the work you put into it. Yes, there is so much more to the story as mentioned by my other comments. My comments are done in hopes of preserving the entire truth. Why do Hawaiians feel this way? It is so recent to us. My maternal grandfather was discriminated against because he spoke Hawaiian on the playground as a third grader which was illegal to do in schools. He was playing ball and in his excitement made an exclamation in Hawaiian. He was expelled for that and had no other opportunity for schooling. He began to earn his living at that age. That is a deep hurt in his grandchildren that is still too fresh. Other Hawaiians also have deep hurts that feel as fresh as yesterday.
Hawaii for "Hawaiians!" America for "Americans!" Build the wall(s)! Why is outright racist thinking OK for Hawaiians, but shocking when whitey does it?
Leona, this is the problem with relying solely on hearsay. It oftentimes is not backed by any evidence. For instance, despite the claims to the contrary, the Hawaiian language was never illegal to speak or write. The only thing remotely similar to this concept, was during a brief period of the brief republic, the official language of public schools was English. One could take language classes of any language, and one could have private schools conducted in any language. So the question, is, how do we reconcile stories told by treasured members of our family with factual history without conflating them with evidence of discrimination and reasons to justify current beliefs and behaviors? All of us are guilty of telling little white lies to our children, let's not turn them into something they are not.
So non-natives should not get a vote in their futures? Since when is this OK in places where white people are a majority, but rightly unthinkable in the U.S. where white people are close to becoming a minority?
@@christobanistan8887 It's "Hawaii" not "Europe." No Hawaiians went out looking for Europe for it was Europe who went out looking for Hawaii. No Non-Hawaiian cared when Hawaiians became a minority in their own homelands so why the hell in the world should Hawaiians give two pineapples about Whites becoming a minority where they are SUPPOSED to be the minorities to begin with?
How would you feel if i came to your home and told you that you no longer own it. It is now mine and that you need to move out. You wouldn't like it would you and that is how we feel. Theft is illegal in American law and culture, why is it okay to steal our lands? You are made to pay for or return according to American laws the property you stole, why then America is not okay with returning or making restitution for what they stole does not that same law apply to America and its people who stole. Hawaii is a Nation and should be allowed to be a Nation without America
This is what happened to my family, They were told they had to leave to build the reef runway (what is now the airport). My family had been living there since Hawaiians lived in Hawaii. My family were Ka mea lawaiʻa (fisherman), There were many fish ponds in that area, over 100 shallow water fish ponds created by my family and others. Then one day without notice, they were all rounded up at gunpoint and told to get on coast guard boats, They were not rehomed just picked up by the coast guard and drop off on the shore, and they watched as their homes and ponds get demolished. Think about that every time an aircraft takes off or lands at Honolulu reef runway. Every dime that the airport makes, and nothing to displaced Hawaiians. Today, I see when they want to acquire land for the rail, they pay millions to landowners. WTF? There you go. more history for you! You're welcome!
My family was part of the Portuguese emigration to the Islands as field workers some 150 years ago. Even though the Portuguese were European, they were not considered white, and treated as such. Even though my Grandfather was not prejudiced, and stressed that we be Americans to the point that many of his children married haoles, it continues to be a point of contention in the family. " Hapa-haoles." We all, however, identify more strongly with our Island roots, than with our ties to the Mainland
Why wasn't the portuguese considered white back then ? Even today their not considered Haole (white) but are labeled Caucasians and are Europeans ,wasnt the Italians and irish not considered white at one point in history. I find it strange 🤔
@@Skyclub12 Sorry, brah, kanaka are only about 7% of Hawai'i. We all one ohana and gotta make the best of it. No one's gonna gift wrap us a country. Lol
My grandfather was the hanai son of Honolulu mayor Johnny Wilson. Johnny was part Hawaiian himself and fought (sometimes quite literally) for the rights of the Hawaiian people. (He even stockpiled weapons at Lahaina with a view toward overthrowing the Americans!) Wish I could have met him.
Julian Alcantara I mean whether you’re Hawaiian or not you can still talk about the history of our people. I mean historians talk about many cultures/know many cultures they have no/little ancestry in.
@@opaldust1979 jeez chill, i was just making a joke about how pleny mainlanders are ignorant to the history and culture of my home. I know there are people who have studied history, no worreh beef curreh 🤙🏽
Be glad ur not like the last ppl the US took the main land from the government put out a reward for 5 cents for any Indian scalps for over 150 years n wiped out what was left of the Indians so yea it sucks but at least ur ppl is alive I hate the US but ppl have fought for land since start of time
@Hi I'm 19. Mine too ): The U.S. is messed up and Hawai'i shows you that easily. That's amazing your family has lived there for 1000 years. I lived on Oahu for a little while but moved for school. My mom and her siblings have lived on Oahu their whole lives pretty much and my grandma moved there from Wailuku, that's really all I know for sure rn but i want to know more we've been trying to find out more. Yeah Going back to oahu now breaks my heart and makes me mad 😕
This is not a comment for the person that made this video. This is a comment for a particular person who wants to manipulate a conversation with me about this video topic. I love how people always have to be right, have the last word yet know nothing about a topic they are desperately trying to comment on and be right about. It is also amazing how these people will take what you are commenting on and twist every word. Instead of wasting people’s time trying to manipulate a conversation to their own satisfaction, they should do something good for themselves and educate themselves on the subject at hand.
You should really watch some videos and read dr. Keanu Sai's work. On why we are not called indigenous people and some of your historical views and information you put out.
Fun fact: we ate James Cook :] after a couple weeks of “settling” the Ali’i killed and ate the man and his crew. It’ll honestly my favorite piece of history when I was growing up on the big Island of Hawai’i
That was very interesting. I've been to Hawaii twice, going again soon and this time I want to know more about the history of Hawaii. Hawaii is an absolute paradise. I would live there forever if it was not for these strict visas.
You should have heard the "boos" at the mention of James Cook and Sanford B Dole and the cheers at the mention of Robert Wilcox- and others Hawaiian Monarchs who tried to right the wrongs. Your story is pretty accurate, according to the history books. Mahalo!
You seem to be forgetting that Robert Wilcox was the first representative of annexed Hawaii to Washington DC and was pushing for statehood until he died, but whatevers.
I lived in the islands for twenty years, first on my sailboat, then on the Big Island, Kona side. I'd fly to North Shore for waves. But the diving and fishing was incredible on the Big Island. Sold my Alii Kai 21', and moved back to Alaska, when I got too old to live the life style. It happens to all. I'd like to be reincarnated as Frigate Bird.
Excellent presentation and easy to understand. You made me to watch the entire video of 24 minutes which was very interesting to watch. Such good work you did.. All the best..!! Love you so much..!!
Wow.... I really just had my test on Hawaiian history today, and this appeared in my recommendations. It was also about this as well. Why didn’t I get this earlier? Blame TH-cam.
The reason there was an angry crowd is because when Captain Cook first appeared it was the season of Lono or agriculture then when he later came the following year it was the season of Ku or the season of war around the islands so everyone in that tribe Cook went to was preparing to fight in war so they thought captain cook was an enemy for taking one of the highest ranked chiefs around the island.So that’s why Captain James Cook was killed by the Hawaiian Warriors
Well its good you atleast care and take the time to learn about it!! Thats what matters! I live here in Hawaii now and continuously learning about it. We are a military family and we live where military tells us we live every 3 years whether we like it or not. We love that we have the opportunity to live here and learn the culture and want to be respectful! We feel the Hawaiians hate us here even tho we dont agree or have any part in what happened. We are just learning too! I do know that eventually some country would have come taken unfortunately rather it be Europe, Russia or Japan, but instead was America. I not sure who be better or if hawaii alone would be better. I dunno know.
On the 53rd anniversary of the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, January 17, 1946, Territorial Senator Alice Kamokila Campbell, one of the few voices that opposed statehood for Hawaii, offered her testimony to the joint congressional committee sent to investigate and report on statehood. Kamokila Campbell testified at Iolani Palace in front of a small crowd of 600 to frequent applause. There she stated. I do not feel...we should forfeit the traditional rights and privileges of the natives of our islands for a mere thimbleful of votes in Congress, that we, the lovers of Hawaii from long association with it should sacrifice our birthright for the greed of alien desires to remain on our shores, that we should satisfy the thirst for power and control of some inflated industrialists and politicians who hide under the guise of friends of Hawaii, yet still keeping an eagle eye on the financial and political pressure button of subjugation over the people in general of these islands. Of a Population of 600,000 just 140,000 were registered to vote, I cannot determine how many immigrants (Americans) were able to vote . . . . Over 90% of ethnic Hawaiians voted for their independence from the USA in a recent poll. I'm British and proud Hawaii still flies the Union Jack as part of their flag . . . So much for "Imperialism" we gave everyone in our Empire independence . . . Willingly . .. USA still holding onto theirs
That would be real hard . The only way for that to happen is if the Hawaiians buy every piece of land and that's not going to happen. I own a lot of land and apartments.
I heard the Facebook inventor or modifier whatever i heard he somehow legally took land from native people amd kicked them off of it...thats a person i dont want to know
Do you think racially non-Hawaiian people should ejected from Hawaii and you should "build a wall?" How about removing voting rights from non-Hawaiians? Isn't this "Hawaii for Hawaiians" mentality just as racist in Hawaii as some people's "America for Americans" rhetoric? Isn't racism, racism?
I think that there should be some type of reparation. with that being said I also think that it's 2019 and there needs to be an agreement and not a mass exit of the United States. If the US were to leave,then Hawaii would be Hawaii for a total of five minutes before another country would come in and take over. From what it sounds like in this video, is that the Kamehameha kingdom wanted to expand by dealing with foreigners.
King Kamehameha I had no intention of expanding w/ foreigners. he simply needed weapons to fight off another king from the islands to fulfill his prophecy bc he was our great king. the only reason we are now part of the US is bc our late king-King Kalakaua- was forced to sign a paper while they had a gun to him. & this was written down by niece, our late queen-Lili'uokalani.
@@tiala523 no he wasn't forced. in fact it was a move to step down to let the people elect who they wanted. They also let foreigners coming invest in Hawaii and also be allowed to get into politics. Kamehameha 1 was so infatuated with the modern world that he used resources of the modern world to take over the islands and loved traveling to new world's. He was also introduced to real estate and he leased land to foreigners to make money. That's how the sugar business started. since you acknowledge that he use modern warfare, do you think that had he not met foreigners he would have taken over Hawaii? Because he was left nothing by his uncle, king of Maui.
they didnt see a need to claim land bc to us, the land doesn't belong to the ppl. it belongs to our Akua's - Our Gods. & the haoles played us bc they knew we didnt have knowledge of money.
There were many westerners who loved Hawai'i and gave the mo'i, ali'i and konohiki heads up about money (and other western systems)... AND they still played themselves.
I would add that they came from the Haida, and the other Polynesians came from Hawaii. (If you listen to their stories and not made up theories of racist Anthropologists.) It would be amazing if Hawaii chose self determination and became a/the leader of Polynesia which has suffered greatly from colonization and nuclear testing; we owe them a great deal.
It's always said that King Kamehameha the 1st "united" the Islands, but the fact is he actually violently conquered all of the Hawaiian Islands over decades of brutal warfare - there's a big difference 2:33
@@galaxykidM5 You're right! Native Hawaiians also have no right to complain about anything related to people there who are non native. Suck it up people because you no can change that.
Yup, for more than a hundred years our culture has been stripped away from us. Cultural practices, and language was banned and harshly punished. Everything you know of in our culture, the language, arts and crafts, and even the hula that people so love worldwide was secretly preserved by who I'd call the true hero's of hawai'i.
@@loyalsoljah8083 It's a huge myth that the Hawaiian language was eradicated by the Provisional Government. Hawaiian Kingdom enacted an education policy that highly favored English before the overthrow of the monarchy in 1893. King Kamehameha IV stated in His Majesty's Speech at the Opening of the Legislature (1855): "To foster education and widen every channel that leads to knowledge, is one of our most imperative duties... It is of the highest importance, in my opinion, that education in the English language should become more general, for it is my firm conviction that unless my subjects become educated in this tongue, their hope of intellectual progress, and of meeting the foreigners on terms of equality, is a vain one." King Kamehameha IV stated in His Majesty's Speech at the Opening of the Legislature (1856) that he was satisfied with the Board of Education's progress on English instruction "It is particularly gratifying to know that instruction in the English language is prosecuted with so much success among my native subjects. I recommend you to make as liberal a provision for the support of this class of schools as the state of my Treasury will admit." And this *Hawaiian Kingdom Policy* was very successful in adopting the English language as the main language of education and instruction. 1881: 66% English, 33% Hawaiian 1887: 84% English,16% Hawaiian 1892: 95% English, 5% Hawaiian 1896: 97% English, 3% Hawaiian
The revolution of January 17, 1893 was caused by Queen Liliuokalani's attempt to prorogate the legislature, unilaterally create a new constitution (without the constitutional power to do so), promulgate this new constitution with a sudden declaration (surprise!) and use the military to suppress any opposition to her power grab. On January 14, she was ready to sign and proclaim the new laws. She wrote to Blount that the "members of the diplomatic corps had been invited; also the members of the supreme bench and members of the legislature, besides a committee of the Hui Kalaiaina." She also told Blount that she instructed her guards and military to be ready to suppress any challenge (riots, rebellion, etc) from her opposition: "They assured me they would be ready, and I gave strict injunctions of secrecy." The Queen had been secretly plotting a revolution to overthrow the government and reestablish an absolute monarchy. Then everyone found about her 'secret' plan. Everything went downhill fast for her. People weren't going to curtsy, sit idly and let her smile and wave as she led a revolution. Her opposition mobilized, organized and overthrew her with their own revolution. And the rest is history. Like I said, Queen Lili instigated her own overthrow, despite the advice of her own cabinet and supporters. She was an inexperienced, naive leader who thought she could make sweeping (illegal) changes via royal proclamation. Governor Cleghorn was a royalist, ally and _brother-in-law_ of Queen Liliuokalani. He was angry and disappointed by her plot to overthrow the government and failure to listen to counsel. On January 28, 1893, he wrote "I have never given the Queen anything but good advice. If she had followed my advice, she would have been firm on the throne, and Hawaiian Independence safe, but she has turned out a very stubborn woman and was not satisfied to Reign but wished to Rule." Queen Lili kicked a hornets nest and was stung by her own arrogance. She cost the country its independence. American Minister Stevens was following the instructions of his predecessor, Minister Miller, who received instructions from the Secretary of State of the first _President Cleveland_ Administration. Cleveland was president during the Bayonet Constitution of 1887. Secretary of State Thomas F. Bayard sent written instructions to then American Minister George W. Merrill that if another revolution happens in Hawaii, then they must protect American commerce, lives and property. Bayard clearly stated that, "the assistance of the officers of our Government vessels, if found necessary, will therefore be promptly afforded to promote the reign of law and respect for orderly government in Hawaii."After the revolution that lead to the Bayonet Constitution, _British_ Minister Wodehouse requested that the Americans keep a warship docked in Hawaiian port in case another revolution happened. In July 1889, there was a rebellion and Merrill ordered the deployment of marines and sailors to protect Americans. John L. Stevens (had replaced Merrill) and followed those official instructions during the overthrow of 1893. The American soldiers were peacekeepers who didn't participate in any government building raids, patrol the streets, fire any shots or provide any material support to the insurgents. Often, the Americans would land, come ashore and practice military drills (prior to the overthrow). During the 1893 revolution, the soldiers marched past Iolani Palace, lowered their flags to show neutrality and saluted the Queen. These are hardly aggressive actions. The Americans then remained in their bunkers and did absolutely nothing because no violence broke out against American interests. There was no invasion or military occupation. The monarchy was overthrown by a homegrown coup of 1,100-1,600 insurgents (who were citizens and royal subjects), Queen Liliuokalani surrendered and abdicated her power WITHOUT fighting to defend her country from internal, domestic threats, which was her constitutional duty as a monarch. President Cleveland asked Congress to investigate alleged American involvement in the hawaiian revolution. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations released the Morgan Report, which refuted the Blount Report and exonerated the U.S. military and agents of any wrongdoing. That was the final nail in the coffin. Cleveland withdrew his support for the reinstatement of the deposed queen.
Interesting that you stopped so soon, love the video. I commend you for the hard work. I would like to see you go past Queen Liliuokalani and her family where are the royals today of THE KINGDOM OF HAWAI'I The KINGDOM of Hawai'I has never been part of the United States, totally separate continent one is north America and the other is Oceania. Mahalo HRH PRINCESS TIFFANY KINGDOM OF MAUI, HAWAI'I , OCEANIA
Aloha, I enjoyed your brief video, however, I feel it needed to express a few major details you omitted within your presentation. Firstly, Captain Cook and his men first landed on Oahu, where both my great great grandparents lived. They both contracted LEPROSY , and this disease spread to all of Ohau and all of the Hawaiian islands, as Captain Cook and his crew, carried the disease, yet had immunity to it, while the isolated Hawaiian population, did not. The Hawaiian Royal Family created, with the assistance of the Roman Catholic Church, a LEPER COLONY, on the island of Molokai , where both my great great grandparents died, as well as all those quarantined there, by the exposure to Captain Cook and his sailors. Secondly, the Hawaiian islands were, "Annexed", by both wealthy foreign plantation owners, as well as wealthy protestant missionaries, which , as you eluded to, actually began to hold the majority control of both houses of the Hawaiian Congress. They then passed a law that prevented anyone that did not own a large amount of acreage land, which most Native Hawaiians owned one acre or less, thus forcing them to be unable to vote, as that is the law they passed, where only those owning large amounts of land were entitled to vote. This made it the law of Hawaii, that the majority of Native Hawaiians could no longer even VOTE , in their own country. That is how both Annexation, Territory of the U.S., and U.S. Statehood actually came about. Lastly, the reason wealthy Americans wanted Hawaii, was , indeed for sugar cane, and sugar, however, this was due to the war that was happening at that time, in the Philippines, between the U.S. and Spain. The U.S. military wanted to have Pearl Harbor, and have a naval base there , to project military power to both the war against Spain, as well as within the South Pacific. But what do I know, as a fourth generation military veteran, born on the fourth of July, right? Aloha Nui Loa, for your video and information, and I do hope my comment helps you, and your viewers understand a bit more of Hawaiian history. I also know that the U.S. government imprisoned , under house arrest, the last King, Queen, and Princess, of Hawaii, and threatened them with U.S. Marines and a Battle Ship, anchored in Pearl Harbor, if any of them left the Royal Palace, with death and the destruction of the palace. Rather than fight 100K U.S. Marines, with only 40K Hawaiian Royal Guards, the last Queen stood down and allowed Annexation and Statehood to occur after failing to convince the U.S. President to not allow those actions by the U.S. government and the usurped Hawaiian government, to take place. Again, thank you for your video, and perhaps more people will look into Hawaii, in a more realistic light, instead of simply looking at it as just a nice place to go vacation, while the water supply of the Hawaiian islands is wasted away by every flushed toilet in every luxury hotel room on all of Hawaii's major islands. There is not any Aloha left in the land, nor most of the people in Hawaii, as it is mostly extinct, just like the once proud Hawaiian Natives, gone the same way as the once proud Native American tribes of North America."Ah, but ain't that America, for you and me? Ain't that America, home of the free? Little Pink Houses for you and Me, Yeah?" -John Cougar Mellencamp? Aloha Nui Loa. Mahalo Nui Loa.
Yeah, how dare Cook or someone on his crew have leprosy. Sounds like a moral evil to me to suffer from a disease and to spread it long before anyone even knew how disease spread.
It is my understanding that all citizens of Hawaii were allowed to vote on the statehood referendum. Can you cite a source that Native Hawaiians, or Hawaiian citizens were not allowed to vote on statehood???
Uncle, there weren't a 100K Marines in the entire Corp in 1893 it was only a company sent to protect the US Consulate. They made clear their intentions by saluting the Queen when they passed by the palace on their way to their post. Only the Queen was placed under "house arrest" after she tried to incite rebellion after rebellion, on top of pleading with US President to execute the leaders of the overthrow. She wasn't alive for the statehood.
@@ThatWasHistory What you are missing is that the real cause was the grandchildren of the Missionaries that came over to Hawaii to teach us about god then stole our lands, outlawed our language both written and oral with punishment of prison, then sold lands to Americans only
@Amendola prove it....the history books lied about the whole history of Hawaii. How can the US claim Hawaii when its Metes and bounds were registered by our third King because he knew what America was going to do. Under international law we are still an independent country.
Carol Mosher My Dear Carol. The Hawaiian Kingdom still exist even without a representing King or Queen. Legally, according to International Law which supersedes U.S. Law, Hawaii is NOT a State Of The United States. I could write a 1 hour explanation on this, however, I don’t think writing a Presentation on this comment page is what this comment page is for. I do suggest that you watch Dr. Keanu Sai’s 3 hour presentation on TH-cam which not only explains in detail the legalities Of The Illegal Occupancy Of The U.S. in Hawaii, but he also shows legal documentation signed by President Cleveland, President McKinley and other factual documented information showing proof of all his findings. Dr. Sai’s information is without a shadow of a doubt factual otherwise he would not have been able to receive his doctrine in Political Science and International Law.
@@anitamendez116 Couldn't every state in the United make such claims. Yet every state had free, fair and open elections to vote for statehood. No one put a gun to any citizen of Hawaii and forced them to vote to join the Union. Can International law take away the right of sovereign people to vote to join the United States?
Carol Mosher No...every State in the United States cannot make the same claims. It has to do with Treaties. There was NEVER a Treaty between the U.S. and The Hawaiian Kingdom State (Every Independent Country according to International Law is called a State). Again, we can go back and forth ALL DAY with this, however, you do need to Educate yourself and look at Dr. Keanu Sai’s 3 hour TH-cam presentation then come back and make any comments you want with me.
as much as I feel for the people of Hawaii and understand why they feel they deserve sovereignty, in today's world I would be scared that if they left the U.S. they would be overthrown by some other nation. the same argument is used when Texans claim they want to leave. they know that immediately Mexico would attempt to take that land. HI has never had a large military or been known for forging empires; as a people they were masters of agricultural innovation and unfortunately a lot of places try to take advantage of that. But surely anyone can appreciate how even though they are part of the United States, the Hawaiians strive to keep their unique culture and traditions? I once spoke with a Hawaiian man who said he didn't consider himself a U.S. citizen. and even today it is unlawful to own any beach property on Hawaii...not even the huge hotels in Honolulu can.
@@pfmcoop And yet Russia just annexed Crimea and China is trying to annex the entire South China Sea. BTW Hawaiians voted by a massive 93% margin to join the union in an extremely free and fair election. That's not annexation by any historical standard. Well, except by a racist standard were non-natives aren't considered "Hawaiian" enough.
Thank you "That Was History" for posting this Video. Can you post more Videos on the History of Hawai'i please? I feel so sorry for Hawaiians. The Invaders came to the Land and taught the Bible. When they started taking over, the Native People couldn't retaliate because of what they were being taught from the Bible. I can imagine that they would have been told or came to the realisation of how they would've felt like they would be condemned if they retaliated. It's an absolute deceit of the very Book that those Invaders held in the Hands. The Ten Commandment speak about this. Thou shall not shall not steal. Also, thou shall not envy thy Neighbour. The Invaders clearly didn't give a Pineapple about any of that. I was actually thinking about what happened to Hawai'i and its People, without even having watched these Videos on the History of Hawai'i and I had a Feeling that things like that happened. I checked the Videos and what I was thinking about is exactly what happened. It's messed up. Hawai'i has been infected in so many ways. Infected with Sugar and everything else. There are Channels that reveal similar History on Hawai'i's USA Annexing. They are "Johnny Harris", "Weird History", "Mastering Knowledge", "AJ+", "Overly Sarcastic Productions" and "Thinktech Hawaii".
Pretty good, but you left out A Lot of information. The Hawaiian Government was taken over (illegally), not the Hawaiian Kingdom. The United States wanted a Treaty to completely take over Hawaii, however, that Treaty was NEVER agreed upon by the Hawaiian Kingdom or the Hawaiian People. The Hawaiian Kingdom has, is and will ALWAYS be in effect. With that said, Hawaii has always been a Sovereign Nation. Legally, Hawaii NEVER gave up it’s Independence. The Hawaiian Kingdom is alive and well.
@@carolmosher7745 no Hawaiian voted for statehood, none! People were fed lies! The truth is coming out, just look at the number of countries that still recognize the Kingdom of Hawai'i as a sovereign nation.
@@christiancramerhawaiirealt5690 do you feel good about yourself? It must make you feel SO great to antagonize people who are struggling to protect that which they hold dear. But maybe you dont understand. Because you come seem to act like you come from a people who are used to exploiting, taking, and imposing on others, instead of knowing the land of you come from and loving that. Instead of talking about inbreeding and wanting a giant 30 meter telescope on a mountain that you have absolutely no spiritual and cultural connection to, why dont you focus on the inbreeding your people do, especially that which has taken place to birth your pitiful self. And asking you to focus on connecting with the land of your ancestors is as fruitless as asking a wolf to willfully go vegan. Your people haven't had any intimate connection with any land since in forever. All they've done is just take from others and try to act as if its theirs, and with the nerve to try and be offended by "illegal immigrants" "taking over". The sad part is, is that you guys run around acting as if you're so great, and it's the thing to be American, but it's all delusion, and your greed. You'd actually have an argument if Amerikkka actually did things like keep its word, and stop the thefts, and bullying, and actually took steps to take care of Hawaiians, but our people are actually doing worse since territory and Statehood. You guys can't even take care of the country you stole on the continent, so it boggles me why you guys even want to impose upon us, when we never wanted you here. And if you dont like us, please leave, because we would be so happy. Mahalo
The video was done rather well. More work should've been done talking about Hawaiian resistance, the Kūʻē Anti-Annexation Petition of 1898, the support of President Cleveland in restoring the throne, and the invasion by the U.S. marines in 1893. I think a little more effort could've gone into the motives for Kalākaua`s actions, namely his push for nationalism, the 1881 journey around the world, the technological advancements and modernization he brought, and what these "threats" meant to the American interests that would become the "Hawaiian League" who forced the 1887 Bayonet Constitution. The works of James Kaulia and the Hui Aloha ʻĀina should have also had a mention to reinforce the facts that Hawaiians under no circumstance stood idle towards foreign aggression, and absolutely did not want annexation by any foreign power, American or otherwise. A note should also have been put in that the 1993 Apology and the quote used for this video should have included notes of the secret correspondences by the Secretary of the Navy to Minister John L. Stevens with direct orders to support American agents in Hawaiʻi (Thurston and the illegal Provisional Government) to create a Provisional Government. A final note should be included about the illegality of a joint resolution to annex a foreign country, and that the current legality of the "State" as an official agency is completely illegal. No Treaty of Annexation = No legal Provisional Government = No legal Territory of Hawaiʻi = No State of Hawaiʻi.
Didn't Queen Liliuokalani try to abrogate the constitution, overthrow the government, unilaterally create her own constitution, increase her autocratic powers, strengthen a more absolute monarchy and instruct the military to defend her revolution with force? YES. Didn't the insurgents find out about her illegal and unconstitutional plot, lead a counter-revolution, depose her and take control of the government? YES. Didn't the Queen surrender and later sign an abdication letter where she took oath to the constitution, reliquished sovereign claims, and acknowledge the Provisional Government? YES. Didn't the Republic of Hawaii have control of the government and country? YES. Didn't the Republic of Hawaii request annexation from the United States? YES. Didn't the Republic of Hawaii unanimously pass a Treaty of Annexation in _their_ Legislature that later failed to pass through the U.S. Senate? YES. Didn't the U.S. eventual accept the annexation and memorialize it with a joint resolution? YES. Didn't the U.S. also annex the Republic of Texas, a sovereign and independent country, with a joint resolution and it was FORTY ONE times bigger than Hawaii? YES. Wasn't the Newlands Resolution passed with a TWO THIRDS majority by BOTH the Senate and the House of Representatives, which is stronger than the approval criteria required for a treaty? YES. Did the United States and Republic of Hawaii accept, abide and act according to the Newlands Resolution? YES. Didn't all of the Kingdom's allies and treaty holders provide formal, written and de facto recognition of the Provisional Government, Republic of Hawaii and Annexation? YES. Are there any U.S. or International laws of 1898 that state that a country must use a treaty (and only a treaty) to annex foreign land? NO.
I recently came from a trip to Oahu, and as a brown person, I can tell how people are treated differently. For example, we ordered food at a local Hawaiin restaurant, they treated us as family. Next thing we know, a group of 5 white tourist enter the shop and they don't get a hello, nor the same treatment. I now understand the locals and they way of treating tourist. It's not aloha all the time, and it's totally understandable. I hope they gain sovereignty.
Sorry, braddah, we all need to treat each other as one ohana. Nobody is alive to bear responsibility for the crimes committed by kanaka and haole. We all need to love each other and treat each other with respect. In Hawai'i, racism is a two-way street and kanaka no different than haole. Everyone hates someone who hates someone... It's not healthy.
Totally agree with the native Hawaiians as it was fucked up (I think that short phrase is accurate) how the U.S. got it to be a state. But, at the same time, there is concern, in my mind, that if a new government should form, what would happen? What about the millions who own homes here and the economy? By the way, great job with the online history lesson🌈😃🤙
I think that Hawaii should remain a state. But I think Tribal/natives from all US lands should be given several areas of latitude. In Hawaii that would mean tax incentives for native Hawaiians that helps keep them in their homes and grow their way of life. They should be able to collectively monitor land sales to prevent billionaires from buying everything.
Too bad your own king kamehameha traded Land in Hawaii for rights to export sugar to the US. The Hawaiian kingdom didn’t value their hand so someone else is owning it. Hawaii is part of the US and now the 8 islands are being taken care of better than they ever were.
You haoles are selfish and are the complete opposite of kapu aloha so if you come to our islands and even try act Hawaiian you have plenty of karma coming for you
Thanks for commenting! We've been tossing around the idea of making a history video for Puerto Rico. Would you prefer it to be in a similar format as the Hawaii video?
Look bottom line is that the world is a nasty place full of competition. The Hawaiians lacked the military capabilities to defend their sovereignty. It is very simple, they could not defend and keep their home. If not the USA it would have been Japan or another country. Hawaiians should be glad it was the USA who ended up with control. Otherwise say goodbye to all those traditions, music, people, etc. Japan would have cleaned house.
They never stole a long boat why would they steal a long boat when they had boats already. Get your facts straight how do you think we found the islands swim? Cook had unfortunate timing and was mistaken for the God Lono and was killed because they thought he was a reincarnation. Cook went back to his ships gathered his men and tried to retaliate. Which led to war were cook was killed with gun and sword in hand look it up bro. I am truly offended by your wrong information Cook should of been killed before he even stepped foot on the islands because all his sickness and disease killed off most of our people and he also took people as slaves too. So he got what he deserved.(shark teeth battle club to his head) I guess the Christian's call us Heathens because we worship the old gods or I do anyways( Ke Akua, Lono, Pele etc.)
808supa43 I am Hawaiian, the longboat was stolen for the iron used to hold the boat together. Because there are no metal ores in Hawaii, this was a precious commodity to us. In addition, check this out...www.fair-wind.com/history-of-kealakekua-captain-cook/...the Hawaiian reprovisioned Cook's ship generously. 808supa, I do understand your take on this because lots of accounts don't mention the boat was taken for it's iron. Aloha i kekahi i kekahi kanaka.
@@jordankahele14 "he also admitted to western diseases" Wow, he "admitted" to disease, eh? Sounds about as rational as the rest of your comment. Of course the guy stole the longboat, and your reasoning why he "couldn't" have is flimsy as hell.
@@konaleona Thanks for correcting his ignorance. It seems like there was a stupid and terrible escalation on both sides as the guy who stole it was just a criminal, and the Hawaiians, realising the mob fucked up killing Cook, did *try* to repair the damage.
Continuing with fourth comment to Sunny Sied. After two failed attempts to acquire Hawai‘i by a treaty, which is international law, from an insurgency established by the United States diplomat on January 17, 1893, and admitted by President Grover Cleveland to be unlawful, the United States Congress enacted a joint resolution “purporting” to annex the Hawaiian Islands on July 6, 1898, and President William McKinley signed it into United States law the following day. The President and Congress stated it was a military necessity to annex the Hawaiian Islands during the Spanish-American War in order to protect the west coast of the United States from foreign invasion. The joint resolution was introduced as House Resolution no. 259 on May 4, 1898, after the Senate could not garner enough votes to ratify a so-called treaty of annexation. During the debate in the Senate, a list of Senators rebuked the theory that a joint resolution has the effect of annexing a foreign territory. Senator Augustus Bacon, stated, “The proposition which I propose to discuss is that a measure which provides for the annexation of foreign territory is necessarily, essentially, the subject matter of a treaty, and that the assumption of the House of Representatives in the passage of the bill and the proposition on the part of the Foreign Relations Committee that the Senate shall pass the bill, is utterly without warrant in the Constitution [31 Cong. Rec. 6145 (June 20, 1898)].” Senator William Allen stated, “A Joint Resolution if passed becomes a statute law. It has no other or greater force. It is the same as if it would be if it were entitled ‘an act’ instead of ‘A Joint Resolution.’ That is its legal classification. It is therefore impossible for the Government of the United States to reach across its boundary into the dominion of another government and annex that government or persons or property therein. But the United States may do so under the treaty making power [31 Cong. Rec. 6636 (July 4, 1898)].” Senator Thomas Turley stated, “The Joint Resolution itself, it is admitted, amounts to nothing so far as carrying any effective force is concerned. It does not bring that country within our boundaries. It does not consummate itself [31 Cong. Rec. 6339 (June 25, 1898)].” In a speech in the Senate where the Senators knew that the 1897 treaty was not ratified, Senator Stephen White stated, “Will anyone speak to me of a ‘treaty’ when we are confronted with a mere proposition negotiated between the plenipotentiaries of two countries and ungratified by a tribunal-this Senate-whose concurrence is necessary? There is no treaty; no one can reasonably aver that there is a treaty. No treaty can exist unless it has attached to it not merely acquiescence of those from whom it emanates as a proposal. It must be accepted-joined in by the other party. This has not been done. There is therefore, no treaty [31 Cong. Rec. Appendix, 591 (June 21, 1898)].” Senator Allen also rebuked that the joint resolution was a contract or agreement with the so-called Republic of Hawai‘i. He stated, “Whenever it becomes necessary to enter into any sort of compact or agreement with a foreign power, we cannot proceed by legislation to make that contract [31 Cong. Rec. 6636 (July 4, 1898)].” According to Westel Willoughby, a United States constitutional scholar, “The constitutionality of the annexation of Hawaii, by a simple legislative act, was strenuously contested at the time both in Congress and by the press. The right to annex by treaty was not denied, but it was denied that this might be done by a simple legislative act…Only by means of treaties, it was asserted, can the relations between States be governed, for a legislative act is necessarily without extraterritorial force-confined in its operation to the territory of the State by whose legislature it is enacted.” Ninety years later, in 1988, the United States Attorney General reviewed these Congressional records and in a legal opinion stated, “Notwithstanding these constitutional objections, Congress approved the joint resolution and President McKinley signed the measure in 1898. Nevertheless, whether this action demonstrates the constitutional power of Congress to acquire territory is certainly questionable.” The Attorney General then concluded, “It is therefore unclear which constitutional power Congress exercised when it acquired Hawaii by joint resolution.” Hawai‘i was never a part of the United States, and has been under an illegal and prolonged occupation since the Spanish-American War. Sources of international law are, in rank of precedence: international conventions, international custom, general principles of law recognized by civilized nations, and judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations (Statute of the International Court of Justice, Article 38). The legislation of every state, to include the United States of America and its Congress, is not a source of international law, but rather a source of municipal law of the state whose legislature enacted it. In The Lotus, the International Court stated, “Now the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a State is that-failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary-it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State (Lotus, PCIJ, ser. A no. 10, 18 (1927).” According to Crawford, derogation of this principle will not be presumed, which he refers to as the Lotus presumption (James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law 34 (2d ed. 2006). Since Congressional legislation, whether by a statute or a joint resolution, has no extraterritorial effect, it is not a source of international law, which “governs relations between independent States (Lotus, at 18).” The U.S. Supreme Court has always adhered to this principle. The U.S. Supreme Court stated, “Neither the Constitution nor the laws passed in pursuance of it have any force in foreign territory unless in respect of our own citizens, and operations of the nation in such territory must be governed by treaties, international understandings and compacts, and the principles of international law (United States v. Curtiss Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 318 (1936).”
There is no United States or International Law of 1898 that declares a treaty _(and only a treaty)_ can be used for annexation of foreign land. The U.S. has aquired foreign land in many different ways, which shows that joint resolution was part of established customs and norms. ✔ The Republic of Hawaii requested to be annexed by the United States. The Hawaiian legislature unanimously agreed to annexation and passed their Treaty of Annexation. ✔ On the U.S. side, the President wanted annexation, and two-thirds of the Senate AND two-thirds of the House of Representatives voted for annexation by passing the Newlands Resolution. Since both Houses ratified the Resolution with a TWO-THIRDS majority, it exceeds the criteria of Treaty. ✔ The Treaty of Annexation (Hawaii) and the Newlands Resolution (United States) are two documents, related and in agreement with one another with a common intent to bind both parties in a _BILATERAL_ agreement. This met the legal requirement for a mutually, acceptable agreement. Moreover, Hawai'i and the United States abided by this agreement and behaved accordingly. That further reinforces the agreement because it shows common acceptance and practice. They defined the treaty and followed it. ✔ The U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations delivered the Morgan Report on February 26, 1894, which refuted the Blount Report and exonerated the actions of the U.S. military. No other congressional report has refuted this report and concluded that the U.S. government or military enacted a foreign policy to overthrow the Hawaiian Monarchy. ✔ All of the allies and treaty holders of the Hawaiian Kingdom provided de facto, formal and written recognition of the Provisional Government, Republic of Hawaii and Annexation. The international community legitimized every phase of the Kingdom's transition from country to territory to state. ✔ The U.S. has used acts and joint resolutions in lieu of treaties many times (such as the annexation of Texas and Hawai'i, ending of World War I, etc). Please refer to *"Acts and Joint Resolutions of Congress as Substitutes for Treaties"* (James W. Garner) www.jstor.org/stable/2190424 ✔✔✔
@@peperomia117 OK, no matter. The point is the entire population voted for it, and it passed by 97%. The voice of the people could not have been clearer or more resounding.
@@christobanistan8887 there was no treaty of annexation. it was defeated in 1898 because the Hawaiian subjects protested through ku'e petitions. By the time the people "voted," they had already fallen victim to denationlization by America. The children (Hawaiian subjects but included Japanese, Hawaii aboriginal people and all other ethnicities) were stripped of their identities beginning in 1906 through the American school system. Hawaiian language was banned and they were beaten and told they were American. They were subjected to this type of genocide and of course, through this were brainwashed into thinking being American was a privilege. If not for the American interference of brainwashing and the influx of foreigners gaining "right to vote" do you think the outcome would have been the same? The Hawaiian Kingdom far surpassed American idealogies and technologies. It wasn't the Hawaiian Kingdom that needed the US, it was the other way around.
Continuing with second comment to Sunny Sied; When the Spanish-American War broke out, President McKinley proclaimed that the Spanish-American war would “be conducted upon principles in harmony with the present views of nations and sanctioned by their recent practice,” and acknowledged the constraints and protection international laws provide to all sovereign states, whether belligerent or neutral. As noted by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge during the Senate’s secret session, Hawai`i, as a sovereign and neutral state, was no exception when it was occupied by the United States during its war with Spain. Article 43 of the 1899 Hague Convention, II, which remained the same under the 1907 amended Hague Convention, IV, delimits the power of the occupant and serves as a fundamental bar on its free agency within an occupied State, whether belligerent or neutral. On April 25, 1898, the U.S. Congress declared war against Spain and battles were fought in the Spanish colonies of the Philippines and Guam in the Pacific, and the Spanish colonies of Cuba and Puerto Rico in the Caribbean. Although fighting ceased in Puerto Rico and Cuba on July 25 under an armistice agreement signed in Washington, D.C., fighting continued in the Philippines until August 13 when a second armistice was signed. Both armistices suspended hostilities pending the negotiation of a treaty of peace that was eventually signed in Paris on December 10, 1898. Before the first armistice was signed, President McKinley sent directives to the Secretary of War on July 13, 1898 regarding occupations by U.S. troops during the war. This prompted the Secretary of War to publish General Orders No. 101 and was provided to all commanders of U.S. troops, to include the commander of troops that occupied the Hawaiian Kingdom, which took place on August 12, 1898, one year before the armistice was signed suspending hostilities in the Philippines. General Orders No. 101 clearly reflects the United States recognition of customary international law regarding the law of occupation, which are the same provisions codified in the 1899 Hague Convention, II. The commanders of U.S. troops occupying the Hawaiian Kingdom since August 12, 1898 disregarded General Orders No. 101. The failure of the commanders of U.S. troops in the Hawaiian Kingdom to comply with General Orders No. 101 and international humanitarian law, to include its current commander of the U.S. Pacific Command and is why war crimes have and continue to be committed on a monumental scale.
President McKinley issued General Orders No. 101 towards the occupation of _Cuba_ after the Spanish-American war. This _presidential_ order was directly applicable to the U.S. military occupation of Cuba and didn't even mention anything about Hawai'i, let alone the _alleged_ occupation of Hawai'i. The U.S. military was not in violation of General Order No. 101 because the General (President McKinley, the Commander in Chief) never issued this order to the U.S. Military in Hawai'i. I read the Order and there's no mention of Hawai'i whatsoever. There was no U.S. 'military occupation' or 'war crimes' in Hawai'i. In order to have war crimes you need to have a _WAR._ If you want an example of U.S. style military invasion and occupation, then look Cuba (1898) or the long-term and bloody conflict of Haiti in 1915. That's a REAL military invasion and occupation. Anyone who claims there was U.S.-Hawai'i war or military occupation is just spreading pure propaganda. There was no shelling of the coast by the U.S.S. Boston, no planned and coordinated assault by the marines, no fighting in the streets of Honolulu from hale to hale, no raiding and burning down of 'Iolani Palace, no fighting, no major bloodshed, no casualties, no War. Nothing. How can you have war crimes with no war? The overthrow was overwhelmingly peaceful as far as coup d'etats go. Compare and contrast that with Kamehameha's 20 year, bloody military *conquest* of the Hawaiin archipelago, which involved 12,000 men, 1,000 war canoes, tradition and modern weaponry (such as canons) and MANY casualties. There is no record in the history books of war between the United States and the Hawaiian Kingdom/Republic of Hawaii. The United Nations doesn't note any military occupation or state of war (past or present) between those countries. Why? Because the United States and Hawai'i NEVER entered a state or war, which is the _PREREQUISITE_ for a state of military occupation.
What Iraq did to Kuwait when they invaded and overthrew Kuwaits government then claim it now belonging to Iraq, is the same thing the U.S did to the Hawaiian Kingdom and still yet today.. And guess who was the first to point out Iraq's violation of international laws and attacked Iraq militarily? Yep the hypercrit U.S. The Hawaiian kingdom was never legally annexed for there was no treaty signed by the Hawaiian kingdom because the U.S overthrew the Hawaiian kingdoms government therfore their annexation is invalid and illegal.
The U.S. intervened in Kuwait for several reasons: 1) humanitarian, 2) modern international laws, 3) Iraq was challenging U.S. presence and influence in the Middle East, 4) it was an enemy of it's allies Saudi Arabia and Israel and 5) the oil industry. Basically, Iraq tried to flex and got knocked on its ass. When the rebels overthrew the Hawaiian Monarchy, all of the Kingdom's allies and treaty holders provided written and de facto recognition of the Provisional Government, Republic of Hawaii and the Annexation. No international power came to provide any military help to Hawai'i. Why? Most countried understood that the Americans had the most influence and control of Hawai'i and, as a country, it couldn't stand on its own two legs without being propped up by a stronger power. The world thought it was a weak nation. Even President Cleveland called it "feeble." The Hawaiian newspaper The Liberal (owned and operated by Wilcox) stated that, if the Kingdom could be overthrown so easily, then the country didn't deserve to exist. Strong words, but accurate.
@@sunnysied713 even if your explanation were true, that is still not justified. Bottom line, without a treaty from any government (no matter what size or how strong) there is no annexation. At least a legal annexation. In this case the Hawaiian Kingdoms government was ILLEGALLY overthrown therefore it is impossible for it to be annexed per international law aswell U.S laws. In fact the international courts has already ruled aswell submitted written notice to the United States that they are illegally occupying the Hawaiian kingdom and their annexation is illegal and fraudulent. Even the U.S Federal court admitted that fact. So all the other rest you try to point out whether true or not is insignificant.
@@oneloveyessah There is no United States or International Law of 1898 that declares a treaty _(and only a treaty)_ can be used for annexation of foreign land. The U.S. has aquired foreign land in many different ways, which shows that joint resolution was part of established customs and norms. ✔ The Republic of Hawaii requested to be annexed by the United States. The Hawaiian legislature unanimously agreed to annexation and passed their Treaty of Annexation. ✔ On the U.S. side, the President wanted annexation, and two-thirds of the Senate AND two-thirds of the House of Representatives voted for annexation by passing the Newlands Resolution. Since both Houses ratified the Resolution with a TWO-THIRDS majority, it exceeds the criteria of Treaty. ✔ The Treaty of Annexation (Hawaii) and the Newlands Resolution (United States) are two documents, related and in agreement with one another with a common intent to bind both parties in a _BILATERAL_ agreement. This met the legal requirement for a mutually, acceptable agreement. Moreover, Hawai'i and the United States abided by this agreement and behaved accordingly. That further reinforces the agreement because it shows common acceptance and practice. They defined the treaty and followed it. ✔ The U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations delivered the Morgan Report on February 26, 1894, which refuted the Blount Report and exonerated the actions of the U.S. military. No other congressional report has refuted this report and concluded that the U.S. government or military enacted a foreign policy to overthrow the Hawaiian Monarchy. ✔ All of the allies and treaty holders of the Hawaiian Kingdom provided de facto, formal and written recognition of the Provisional Government, Republic of Hawaii and Annexation. The international community legitimized every phase of the Kingdom's transition from country to territory to state. ✔ The U.S. has used acts and joint resolutions in lieu of treaties many times (such as the annexation of Texas and Hawai'i, ending of World War I, etc). Please refer to *"Acts and Joint Resolutions of Congress as Substitutes for Treaties"* (James W. Garner) www.jstor.org/stable/2190424 ✔✔✔ Furthermore, Queen Liliuokalani tried to illegally overthrow the government just like Kamehameha V had illegaly done in 1864. Larsen v Hawaiian Kingdom was dismissed by the PCA and proved nothing about the Hawaiian Kingdom's alleged perpetuity. The United Nations backpedaled away from de Zaya's statement about "strange occupation" and they publicly stated that it's his own independent opinion, not the official position of the U.N.. The Department of Justice can share an opinion, but they have no legislative or judicial power. Dr. Sai's legal argument is very weak and based on flimsy logic, propaganda and lies. You can't take today's laws and retroactively apply them to events that happened BEFORE they were even created.
Hawaii has a very interesting history with lots of twists and turns. What do you think about it? Should Hawaii remain a state within the United States of America?
Also, what state should we cover next?
Deoccupy hawaii. If a government has to apologize for the illegal overthrow of the monarchy, the illegal annexation of our aina, and not letting native Hawaiians vote on statehood unless they agreed to be a or were an American citizen then maybe the American government should get the fuck out. Many native Hawaiians that did vote voted against statehood but any American citizen that had lived in hawaii for at least a year could vote, and since the majority of people in hawaii were migrant workers or military personnel and their dependents of course they voted to make us american.
Gotta agree with jackson. If a vote should be held, it should be held by native Hawaiians only. With the vote perverted by an overwhelming caucasian American population it should be obvious to anyone how the vote goes. Oh the dangers of uncontrolled immigration!
But the whole idea of secession via historical claims, brings with it a very interesting, potentially dangerous, precedent for ALL indigenous peoples. What happens when the Cherokee, or Navajo decide they can do the same thing? Or the confederate states for that matter?
Although an interesting, and seemingly fair, proposal. Regression is rarely the proper course.
@Doctor Atari so how exactly is any sovereign country supposed to defend it's culture if anybody that enters gets a vote? Look no further than California for an example. What's Cali gonna look like in 10-20 years if illegal immigrants get to vote?
In case you have you have the foresight of a democrat, it's gonna look exactly like MEXICO! DUH!
Allowing an invasive culture into a sovereign territory will ALWAYS end with the destruction of native culture.
Just as an aside, the fact that you immediately go to "RACIST!" as your defense tells me where you really stand on an intellectual debate, like national sovereignty.
@Doctor Atari ponder this question please. If non citizens were allowed to vote here in America, what's to stop China from sending 500,000,000 people over here to vote us into a Chinese dictatorship?
THAT'S what happened to Hawaii. American involvement in Hawaii's politics voted a sovereign nation out of existence. Is that fair or not?
Hawaiian's want to return to their cultural and political past. So if Americans get a vote, how would it ever be a fair vote?
@Doctor Atari my point exactly
Hawaii for the Hawaiians!!! Support from Sweden.
@@octodaddy4494 if you study history you'll find that Hawaii is better off with the US than without it
Octodaddy Hawaii is too important for strategic naval placement, if America leaves the Chinese would probably try and take it to have more leverage over the United States because if ever a conflict or World war 3, China could strike North America very easily. Between Russia, China or the United States, who do you prefer has the biggest stick in the yard?
@@DrSho USA is better with Hawaii. Hawaii has become a military target for other nations like North Korea. Look up the Turpee Resolution of 1894 that all the other countries that had treaties with Hawaii were warned by USA not to interfere in the USA plans for Hawaii to be taken over.
What if white people in the U.S. said such a thing?
@@octodaddy4494 Ah, so you're a racist/nativist. Thought so.
In Hawaii we spread out the aloha and show respect even though you’re not Hawaiian
As someone who has visited Maui and experienced the divine aura of that place for myself, I can see why the natives value it so much. It's an isolated paradise. Frankly, if some sort of movement happened that returned all the locals' sovereign land to them and all us whities were kicked out, I would support it. It's quite valuable and special out there.
King Kamehameha the V did name a successor, Princess Pauahi, but she declined because she wanted to do other things for her native people. Forming Kamehameha Schools.
I feel America ripped Hawaiian off their heritage and inheritance of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Have you ever been to Hawaii? Hawaiian heritage and history is well preserved.
Kellan Willis barely
You feel? We got straight ripped off
There are historic sites throughout the island. If you ever come to Hawaii you'll see.
@@kellanwillis4530 yeah, and a lot of them are being eradicated due to development. Take Mauna Kea for example, The Kia'i vs. TMT.
You did a decent general job in covering what you could but there are ALOT of important things that you left out. Hawai’i was the first country to offer her citizens universal healthcare with Queen’s hospital. Also, the Queen did NOT “officially” abdicate her throne as you say. She CONDITIONALLY abdicated her throne under the CONDITION that the US restore the power back to the Hawaiian government when the illegalities of the overthrow are found out. Those illegalities are being realized today with the uncovering of our Hawaiian language newspapers and understanding of the true political history of Hawai’i. Also, despite what we learned in western textbooks, Hawai’i was never annexed. Only a joint resolution exists which is merely a US law that says Hawai’i was annexed. But as we all know, laws from a country has no power over another country. Also we now know that the ballot in 1959 is illegal due to it withholding options on the ballot. All of these missing pieces are important because what we are realizing is that Hawai’i is not legally a US state but a “sovereign nation state in continuity under a form of US occupation due to military occupation and fraudulent annexation” as stated by a UN official last year. It seems from your comments that people are touching on this but I suggest to you, if you truly care about the real history of Hawai’i and not some watered down, Western view regurgitated from Wikipedia, look up Dr Keanu Sai and Dr Ron Williams Jr. That’s a good start
My friend, just because you say something is so, doesn't mean it is. Hawai'i wasn't the first country to offer universal healthcare. Germany was the first nation to start the process in 1883, the UK followed in 1911. For clarification, building a hospital in Honolulu, even if it did provide free medical services to the people of Oahu (which there is no evidence it did) did not provide universal healthcare to the people of the rest of the islands. The hospital was mainly funded and staffed by people of european ancestry, yet another contribution they made to the islands. Building hospitals through public and private funding had been going on for many years prior to the Queen's being built in 1858, so it can't even claim a first there.
Why is it so important to claim first to this or the first to that? Doing so erroneously just weakens any point you are trying to make.
To address some other points in your post: The overthrow of any government, however corrupt or non representative is illegal. The overthrow of the British in America was illegal, the overthrow of the French government in Canada was illegal, the Confederacy of States was illegal as was the freeing of enslave black Americans by abolitionists, the overthrow of the Vichy government in France was illegal, the overthrow of Fascism in Italy and the hanging of Mussolini was illegal.
So yes, the overthrow of the Queen's corrupt government was illegal, as was her attempt, years previous to overthrow her brother when he was king with the assistance of Wilcox, who by the way, was as much of european ancestry as polynesian. Her reign was characterized by her desire to restore power over all, to a minority of one, herself. At no point in history, has absolute monarchy been a good idea.
The Great Mahele, instituted when the Kingdom of Hawai'i was ruled primarily by ethnic Hawaiians, automatically granted one third of all the land to the ruling family, one third of all land to the Ali'i, and left potentially one third of the land to common people, if they were cultivating it and tenured on it. Those plots were small and couldn't accommodate inheritance by multiple children, whereas the land designated for royals and ali'i were much larger plots with fewer people to inherit it. Another provision of the Kuleana Clause, was it eliminated the right to the use of common land, by common people, for pasturage, harvesting or cultivation.
Any objective person would likely conclude that isn't a very fair distribution of resources. Added to that fact was a couple of things that made it difficult for people to actually gain title to property. It required a land survey, which cost cash money, something only the royal family and a'li'i had access to. It also required people to be able to read and write, which leads us to another contradiction of modern claims: namely that Hawaii had the highest literacy rates among nations of that era, yet the common people couldn't read or write well enough to claim land, or that they were too ignorant of land ownership to do so. In the first case, it can't be both at the same time. In the later case, it is just insulting to insist that people as intelligent as Hawaiians were and are, didn't understand land ownership. The royal family and ali'i certainly did and profited it from it since time immemorial. The Kapu system among other things governed who could use what land and how, the benefits of which where inheritable, not much of a stretch to land ownership, is it?
Even if you want to insist that common Hawaiians were too ignorant to claim their land, why didn't the royal family and ali'i help their people do so? The simple answer is, they were more interested in remaining the dominant people of the islands as they had been historically, explicitly at the expense of the common people.
After the formation of the Republic of Hawai'i, a government recognized by all the current nations of the time, a push was made for annexation. Contrary to popular modern belief, this annexation was supported by ethnic Hawaiian's including the famous Wilcox. Yes there were ethnic Hawaiians that opposed this move, and they were directly associated with the royal party. Ethnic Hawaiians continued to support annexation by the US and statehood as well.
The first time the annexation was brought before the US Senate it failed to obtain the 3/4 majority it needed mainly because of Southern US Democrats who were notorious racist bigots. There was another legislative process of annexation that only required a simple majority. This process was easily achieved and Hawaii became a territory of the US. At which point everyone in Hawaii, became a US citizen with all the rights and protections associated with such a designation, including representation in Washington DC by, wait for it... good old Wilcox.
In the time that Hawaii lost its kingdom there were approximately 30,000 ethnic Hawaiians, as opposed to 560,000 who now claim ethnic Hawaiian ancestry. Which puts it right back up to pre contact populations. Those are not the numbers or a trend of a people oppressed, held down and deprived.
The Kamehameha School system or KSBE is the richest private school in the US with an 11 billion endowment. The next closest school is Philips Exeter at only 900 million. It is the 10 largest charitable organization in the world, yes the entire world, devoted exclusively to ethnic Hawaiians.
Food for thought, no?
@Kekela au contraire mon ami, je suis viens d'Hawaii. But I agree that we do have a very different perspective on the importance of where you are from. Xenophobia, chauvinism, racism etc, despite whatever brief success they might have, will always be on the losing side of history.
@Kekela look up the definitions, and then examine your beliefs.
@J Denmark are u fcking insane Native Hawaiians in no way supported annexation a census was taken after the overthrow which included almost everybody in the islands I have even found my own ancestors who signed and the majority did not support annexation what fcking evidence do u have to say that we supported annexation Hawaiians protested for decades and we still do and how can u call the last Queen Corrupt every politician is corrupts to a degree however she deeply cared for her people the only reason why we are stuck with United States is that Congress was full a racist I think u need to dive deeper into Hawaiian history and come to realize that many Hawaiians do in fact feel as if everything they had was violated and taken from them and to a degree that’s true the culture was practically illegal even though the amount of people who claim to be native Hawaiian is larger then before (this includes myself) the number of pure native Hawaiians are in free fall and the decline in the language that is 100% as result of a culture that is oppressed and in regards to the Great Mahele a native Hawaiian had to option to own land or the live on Ali’i land however I am pretty sure Crown Lands were only for royals and since many Hawaiians never fully understood the concept of owning land this led to rich white people to buy extremely large amounts of land which led to greater exploitation of Hawaiians even my family land was taken and it’s took years in court over the past few decades to get the land back
And lastly I graduated from Kamehameha Schools and what was the point of mentioning it I can tell u from experience that KS lightly pushes the idea of greater political freedom for Hawaiian and the school has done things that can be considered borderline Anti-American in fact the school does not even recognize Hawai’i statehood day instead choosing the day that the UK France and the United States recognized The Hawaiian kingdom as legitimate overall your argument sounds like a bunch of bullshit and I could care less if u live in Hawai’i because what u said most Native Hawaiians would disagree with
@@JimenaTorrecillas. no
This was a good overview of what happened and I appreciate the work you put into it. Yes, there is so much more to the story as mentioned by my other comments. My comments are done in hopes of preserving the entire truth. Why do Hawaiians feel this way? It is so recent to us. My maternal grandfather was discriminated against because he spoke Hawaiian on the playground as a third grader which was illegal to do in schools. He was playing ball and in his excitement made an exclamation in Hawaiian. He was expelled for that and had no other opportunity for schooling. He began to earn his living at that age. That is a deep hurt in his grandchildren that is still too fresh. Other Hawaiians also have deep hurts that feel as fresh as yesterday.
Hawaii for "Hawaiians!" America for "Americans!" Build the wall(s)!
Why is outright racist thinking OK for Hawaiians, but shocking when whitey does it?
m.th-cam.com/channels/mS1c6SOEZ8KR9Bi9-xaOoA.htmlvideos
Leona, this is the problem with relying solely on hearsay. It oftentimes is not backed by any evidence. For instance, despite the claims to the contrary, the Hawaiian language was never illegal to speak or write. The only thing remotely similar to this concept, was during a brief period of the brief republic, the official language of public schools was English. One could take language classes of any language, and one could have private schools conducted in any language.
So the question, is, how do we reconcile stories told by treasured members of our family with factual history without conflating them with evidence of discrimination and reasons to justify current beliefs and behaviors?
All of us are guilty of telling little white lies to our children, let's not turn them into something they are not.
A sad testimony but thank you for sharing this real history
Thank you for sharing
hawaii is hawaii and she belongs too hawaii
So non-natives should not get a vote in their futures? Since when is this OK in places where white people are a majority, but rightly unthinkable in the U.S. where white people are close to becoming a minority?
@@christobanistan8887
It's "Hawaii" not "Europe."
No Hawaiians went out looking for Europe for it was Europe who went out looking for Hawaii. No Non-Hawaiian cared when Hawaiians became a minority in their own homelands so why the hell in the world should Hawaiians give two pineapples about Whites becoming a minority where they are SUPPOSED to be the minorities to begin with?
I’ll take 5 good men and conquer all the Hawaiian islands
Yes the state of Hawaii does in fact belong to Hawaii. That's why there are state taxes and state laws LOL
AFRAMS-CCT AF-RAMS-CCT 😂 Why even make such an ignorant & foolish comment? Try it bud. Dare ya.
The fact that the US state you chose was Hawaii really cheered my up and made you like your channel more :)
Awesome! We're glad that our video was able to cheer you up. Thanks for watching.
How would you feel if i came to your home and told you that you no longer own it. It is now mine and that you need to move out. You wouldn't like it would you and that is how we feel. Theft is illegal in American law and culture, why is it okay to steal our lands? You are made to pay for or return according to American laws the property you stole, why then America is not okay with returning or making restitution for what they stole does not that same law apply to America and its people who stole. Hawaii is a Nation and should be allowed to be a Nation without America
Bc if they did that there would be no America bc they stole all the land they have from other ppl
Reggie Camacho almost all of America’s land was stolen. Glad tho because we are a damn good country
Excellent point there..
This is what happened to my family, They were told they had to leave to build the reef runway (what is now the airport). My family had been living there since Hawaiians lived in Hawaii. My family were Ka mea lawaiʻa (fisherman), There were many fish ponds in that area, over 100 shallow water fish ponds created by my family and others. Then one day without notice, they were all rounded up at gunpoint and told to get on coast guard boats, They were not rehomed just picked up by the coast guard and drop off on the shore, and they watched as their homes and ponds get demolished. Think about that every time an aircraft takes off or lands at Honolulu reef runway. Every dime that the airport makes, and nothing to displaced Hawaiians. Today, I see when they want to acquire land for the rail, they pay millions to landowners. WTF? There you go. more history for you! You're welcome!
White ppl always want their noses in everything!
Wow, impressive coverage and explanation of Hawaii History. Thoroughly enjoyed. Mahalo.
History as written by the conquers.
Kali 808 sorry bro I’m Scottish but I’m related to Chester Alan Arthur
How's that?
Because they could write
@@naj5338 Because the losers are less likely to be beileved
But the actual qoute is "history is written by the Victor's"
My family was part of the Portuguese emigration to the Islands as field workers some 150 years ago. Even though the Portuguese were European, they were not considered white, and treated as such. Even though my Grandfather was not prejudiced, and stressed that we be Americans to the point that many of his children married haoles, it continues to be a point of contention in the family. " Hapa-haoles." We all, however, identify more strongly with our Island roots, than with our ties to the Mainland
Hawai'i is lucky that Portugal didn't find Hawai'i first, considering their brutal, oppressive colonial past.
Why wasn't the portuguese considered white back then ? Even today their not considered Haole (white) but are labeled Caucasians and are Europeans ,wasnt the Italians and irish not considered white at one point in history. I find it strange 🤔
@@darrellpasion8925 Wasn't so much appearance back then it was whether you were an anglo saxon or not
@@davidvasey5065 got it.
Thx for the history im only learning these stuff for fun
Give the land back to the Natives of Hawaii Islands.
And even if they did, they were cut off from their spiritual culture aswell no? Idk, all im saying is theres allot of healing to do for everyone. 🥀🌹
no
Who’s native?
How do you know?
MoreAmerican Go read a book and study history. I’m not here to solve your problem.
@@Skyclub12 Sorry, brah, kanaka are only about 7% of Hawai'i. We all one ohana and gotta make the best of it. No one's gonna gift wrap us a country. Lol
My grandfather was the hanai son of Honolulu mayor Johnny Wilson. Johnny was part Hawaiian himself and fought (sometimes quite literally) for the rights of the Hawaiian people. (He even stockpiled weapons at Lahaina with a view toward overthrowing the Americans!) Wish I could have met him.
Thanks for the education! Very informative, love the Hawaiian people!
Aye ha'ole man, you did a pretty good job. Seriously, i usually hate when white ppl try talk like they know Hawaiian history. 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
Julian Alcantara I mean whether you’re Hawaiian or not you can still talk about the history of our people. I mean historians talk about many cultures/know many cultures they have no/little ancestry in.
@@opaldust1979 jeez chill, i was just making a joke about how pleny mainlanders are ignorant to the history and culture of my home. I know there are people who have studied history, no worreh beef curreh 🤙🏽
Our people were f***** over and continue to be... :/
Be glad ur not like the last ppl the US took the main land from the government put out a reward for 5 cents for any Indian scalps for over 150 years n wiped out what was left of the Indians so yea it sucks but at least ur ppl is alive I hate the US but ppl have fought for land since start of time
@Hi I'm 19. Mine too ): The U.S. is messed up and Hawai'i shows you that easily. That's amazing your family has lived there for 1000 years. I lived on Oahu for a little while but moved for school. My mom and her siblings have lived on Oahu their whole lives pretty much and my grandma moved there from Wailuku, that's really all I know for sure rn but i want to know more we've been trying to find out more. Yeah Going back to oahu now breaks my heart and makes me mad 😕
America for Americans!! Build the wall!! Ooooops, I meant to say "Hawaii for Hawaiians!" Kick out whitey and build the wall!
That's fuck up you tax Hawaiian's people's on there Island.
Aiko Aoki the democrat deep state overthrew your kingdom using missionaries and mercenaries
As a girl born in Hawaii, I like learning about the history of my home country.
WHAT A BRILLIANT ORATOR AND VIDEO 24 MINS FELT LIKE 4 MINS
Thank you for saying that! It's our longest video to date, but I'm glad to hear it didn't feel too long. Thanks for watching!
This is not a comment for the person that made this video. This is a comment for a particular person who wants to manipulate a conversation with me about this video topic.
I love how people always have to be right, have the last word yet know nothing about a topic they are desperately trying to comment on and be right about. It is also amazing how these people will take what you are commenting on and twist every word. Instead of wasting people’s time trying to manipulate a conversation to their own satisfaction, they should do something good for themselves and educate themselves on the subject at hand.
You should really watch some videos and read dr. Keanu Sai's work. On why we are not called indigenous people and some of your historical views and information you put out.
Fun fact: we ate James Cook :] after a couple weeks of “settling” the Ali’i killed and ate the man and his crew. It’ll honestly my favorite piece of history when I was growing up on the big Island of Hawai’i
So is that why they nearly died out, don't go eating Europeans with a terrible immune system
That was very interesting.
I've been to Hawaii twice, going again soon and this time I want to know more about the history of Hawaii.
Hawaii is an absolute paradise. I would live there forever if it was not for these strict visas.
You should have heard the "boos" at the mention of James Cook and Sanford B Dole and the cheers at the mention of Robert Wilcox- and others Hawaiian Monarchs who tried to right the wrongs.
Your story is pretty accurate, according to the history books. Mahalo!
Just curious, where was this played where it received boos and cheers?
The Hawaiian Monarchs were clinging to their enormous power, and had it taken by equally large assholes, who eventually lost it themselves.
My house on Molokai.
You seem to be forgetting that Robert Wilcox was the first representative of annexed Hawaii to Washington DC and was pushing for statehood until he died, but whatevers.
I was happy to learn that my countrymen (despite their failure) struggled to support and maintain the Hawaiian Royals
I lived in the islands for twenty years, first on my sailboat, then on the Big Island, Kona side. I'd fly to North Shore for waves. But the diving and fishing was incredible on the Big Island. Sold my Alii Kai 21', and moved back to Alaska, when I got too old to live the life style. It happens to all. I'd like to be reincarnated as Frigate Bird.
Excellent presentation and easy to understand. You made me to watch the entire video of 24 minutes which was very interesting to watch. Such good work you did.. All the best..!! Love you so much..!!
Thanks a million for sharing, tremendously informative stuff, I feel educated!
Wow.... I really just had my test on Hawaiian history today, and this appeared in my recommendations. It was also about this as well. Why didn’t I get this earlier? Blame TH-cam.
Really cool video that taught me a lot. Thank you.
The reason there was an angry crowd is because when Captain Cook first appeared it was the season of Lono or agriculture then when he later came the following year it was the season of Ku or the season of war around the islands so everyone in that tribe Cook went to was preparing to fight in war so they thought captain cook was an enemy for taking one of the highest ranked chiefs around the island.So that’s why Captain James Cook was killed by the Hawaiian Warriors
Well its good you atleast care and take the time to learn about it!! Thats what matters! I live here in Hawaii now and continuously learning about it. We are a military family and we live where military tells us we live every 3 years whether we like it or not. We love that we have the opportunity to live here and learn the culture and want to be respectful! We feel the Hawaiians hate us here even tho we dont agree or have any part in what happened. We are just learning too! I do know that eventually some country would have come taken unfortunately rather it be Europe, Russia or Japan, but instead was America. I not sure who be better or if hawaii alone would be better. I dunno know.
On the 53rd anniversary of the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, January 17, 1946, Territorial Senator Alice Kamokila Campbell, one of the few voices that opposed statehood for Hawaii, offered her testimony to the joint congressional committee sent to investigate and report on statehood. Kamokila Campbell testified at Iolani Palace in front of a small crowd of 600 to frequent applause. There she stated.
I do not feel...we should forfeit the traditional rights and privileges of the natives of our islands for a mere thimbleful of votes in Congress, that we, the lovers of Hawaii from long association with it should sacrifice our birthright for the greed of alien desires to remain on our shores, that we should satisfy the thirst for power and control of some inflated industrialists and politicians who hide under the guise of friends of Hawaii, yet still keeping an eagle eye on the financial and political pressure button of subjugation over the people in general of these islands. Of a Population of 600,000 just 140,000 were registered to vote, I cannot determine how many immigrants (Americans) were able to vote . . . . Over 90% of ethnic Hawaiians voted for their independence from the USA in a recent poll. I'm British and proud Hawaii still flies the Union Jack as part of their flag . . . So much for "Imperialism" we gave everyone in our Empire independence . . . Willingly . .. USA still holding onto theirs
Keep Hawaiian lands in Hawaiian hands!!!
That would be real hard . The only way for that to happen is if the Hawaiians buy every piece of land and that's not going to happen. I own a lot of land and apartments.
you sound like trump
I heard the Facebook inventor or modifier whatever i heard he somehow legally took land from native people amd kicked them off of it...thats a person i dont want to know
11:51 imma pause it here. Thank you for making the time on a video of my origins :3 #Mahalo! And #Aloha my friend. I'll be back to watch the rest.
I'm from Hawaii, great vid!
Thanks! I had the chance to visit Hawaii twice a number of years ago. It’s a beautiful place with a wonderful culture.
Do you think racially non-Hawaiian people should ejected from Hawaii and you should "build a wall?" How about removing voting rights from non-Hawaiians? Isn't this "Hawaii for Hawaiians" mentality just as racist in Hawaii as some people's "America for Americans" rhetoric? Isn't racism, racism?
Excellent video and presentation! Keep it up!! Mike
Thank you very much!
I think that there should be some type of reparation. with that being said I also think that it's 2019 and there needs to be an agreement and not a mass exit of the United States. If the US were to leave,then Hawaii would be Hawaii for a total of five minutes before another country would come in and take over. From what it sounds like in this video, is that the Kamehameha kingdom wanted to expand by dealing with foreigners.
King Kamehameha I had no intention of expanding w/ foreigners. he simply needed weapons to fight off another king from the islands to fulfill his prophecy bc he was our great king. the only reason we are now part of the US is bc our late king-King Kalakaua- was forced to sign a paper while they had a gun to him. & this was written down by niece, our late queen-Lili'uokalani.
@@tiala523 no he wasn't forced. in fact it was a move to step down to let the people elect who they wanted. They also let foreigners coming invest in Hawaii and also be allowed to get into politics. Kamehameha 1 was so infatuated with the modern world that he used resources of the modern world to take over the islands and loved traveling to new world's.
He was also introduced to real estate and he leased land to foreigners to make money. That's how the sugar business started.
since you acknowledge that he use modern warfare, do you think that had he not met foreigners he would have taken over Hawaii? Because he was left nothing by his uncle, king of Maui.
Stunning video
they didnt see a need to claim land bc to us, the land doesn't belong to the ppl. it belongs to our Akua's - Our Gods. & the haoles played us bc they knew we didnt have knowledge of money.
There were many westerners who loved Hawai'i and gave the mo'i, ali'i and konohiki heads up about money (and other western systems)... AND they still played themselves.
This was an actual good video and thanks for not using the "America stole Hawaii" clickbait title.
Thank you so much! Glad to hear you enjoyed the video.
Watching this while eating my Luau BBQ Hawaiian chips
Those chips are awesome!
I would add that they came from the Haida, and the other Polynesians came from Hawaii. (If you listen to their stories and not made up theories of racist Anthropologists.) It would be amazing if Hawaii chose self determination and became a/the leader of Polynesia which has suffered greatly from colonization and nuclear testing; we owe them a great deal.
It's always said that King Kamehameha the 1st "united" the Islands, but the fact is he actually violently conquered all of the Hawaiian Islands over decades of brutal warfare - there's a big difference 2:33
@@galaxykidM5 You're right! Native Hawaiians also have no right to complain about anything related to people there who are non native. Suck it up people because you no can change that.
Nice video! I was very curious about the story of that paradise.
I feel like treating Hawaii'an land like we treat federally recognized Native Reservations would be the least we could do...
That's the worst thing you could do to the Hawaiians. Reservations always suffer from poverty and neglect from the federal government
Thx this helped a lot I’m watching this cause I have a project for school 🙄
A very interesting mini history of Hawaii. The islands were actually stolen from the native Hawaiians!
Yup, for more than a hundred years our culture has been stripped away from us. Cultural practices, and language was banned and harshly punished. Everything you know of in our culture, the language, arts and crafts, and even the hula that people so love worldwide was secretly preserved by who I'd call the true hero's of hawai'i.
@@loyalsoljah8083 please provide evidence of this harsh punishment.
@@loyalsoljah8083 It's a huge myth that the Hawaiian language was eradicated by the Provisional Government. Hawaiian Kingdom enacted an education policy that highly favored English before the overthrow of the monarchy in 1893. King Kamehameha IV stated in His Majesty's Speech at the Opening of the Legislature (1855):
"To foster education and widen every channel that leads to knowledge, is one of our most imperative duties... It is of the highest importance, in my opinion, that education in the English language should become more general, for it is my firm conviction that unless my subjects become educated in this tongue, their hope of intellectual progress, and of meeting the foreigners on terms of equality, is a vain one."
King Kamehameha IV stated in His Majesty's Speech at the Opening of the Legislature (1856) that he was satisfied with the Board of Education's progress on English instruction
"It is particularly gratifying to know that instruction in the English language is prosecuted with so much success among my native subjects. I recommend you to make as liberal a provision for the support of this class of schools as the state of my Treasury will admit."
And this *Hawaiian Kingdom Policy* was very successful in adopting the English language as the main language of education and instruction.
1881: 66% English, 33% Hawaiian
1887: 84% English,16% Hawaiian
1892: 95% English, 5% Hawaiian
1896: 97% English, 3% Hawaiian
@@loyalsoljah8083 who cares. Hawaiians were at war for centuries fighting each other. Then the more advanced west came in and conquered. Shit happens
Many people loathe poor immigrants, but rich immigrants can really fuck shit up.
I found a history book about hawai'i and all it said about the overthrow was "the United States government was established in 1893"😑 I was furious
The revolution of January 17, 1893 was caused by Queen Liliuokalani's attempt to prorogate the legislature, unilaterally create a new constitution (without the constitutional power to do so), promulgate this new constitution with a sudden declaration (surprise!) and use the military to suppress any opposition to her power grab. On January 14, she was ready to sign and proclaim the new laws. She wrote to Blount that the "members of the diplomatic corps had been invited; also the members of the supreme bench and members of the legislature, besides a committee of the Hui Kalaiaina." She also told Blount that she instructed her guards and military to be ready to suppress any challenge (riots, rebellion, etc) from her opposition: "They assured me they would be ready, and I gave strict injunctions of secrecy." The Queen had been secretly plotting a revolution to overthrow the government and reestablish an absolute monarchy.
Then everyone found about her 'secret' plan. Everything went downhill fast for her. People weren't going to curtsy, sit idly and let her smile and wave as she led a revolution. Her opposition mobilized, organized and overthrew her with their own revolution. And the rest is history.
Like I said, Queen Lili instigated her own overthrow, despite the advice of her own cabinet and supporters. She was an inexperienced, naive leader who thought she could make sweeping (illegal) changes via royal proclamation. Governor Cleghorn was a royalist, ally and _brother-in-law_ of Queen Liliuokalani. He was angry and disappointed by her plot to overthrow the government and failure to listen to counsel. On January 28, 1893, he wrote "I have never given the Queen anything but good advice. If she had followed my advice, she would have been firm on the throne, and Hawaiian Independence safe, but she has turned out a very stubborn woman and was not satisfied to Reign but wished to Rule." Queen Lili kicked a hornets nest and was stung by her own arrogance. She cost the country its independence.
American Minister Stevens was following the instructions of his predecessor, Minister Miller, who received instructions from the Secretary of State of the first _President Cleveland_ Administration. Cleveland was president during the Bayonet Constitution of 1887. Secretary of State Thomas F. Bayard sent written instructions to then American Minister George W. Merrill that if another revolution happens in Hawaii, then they must protect American commerce, lives and property. Bayard clearly stated that, "the assistance of the officers of our Government vessels, if found necessary, will therefore be promptly afforded to promote the reign of law and respect for orderly government in Hawaii."After the revolution that lead to the Bayonet Constitution, _British_ Minister Wodehouse requested that the Americans keep a warship docked in Hawaiian port in case another revolution happened. In July 1889, there was a rebellion and Merrill ordered the deployment of marines and sailors to protect Americans. John L. Stevens (had replaced Merrill) and followed those official instructions during the overthrow of 1893.
The American soldiers were peacekeepers who didn't participate in any government building raids, patrol the streets, fire any shots or provide any material support to the insurgents. Often, the Americans would land, come ashore and practice military drills (prior to the overthrow). During the 1893 revolution, the soldiers marched past Iolani Palace, lowered their flags to show neutrality and saluted the Queen. These are hardly aggressive actions. The Americans then remained in their bunkers and did absolutely nothing because no violence broke out against American interests. There was no invasion or military occupation. The monarchy was overthrown by a homegrown coup of 1,100-1,600 insurgents (who were citizens and royal subjects), Queen Liliuokalani surrendered and abdicated her power WITHOUT fighting to defend her country from internal, domestic threats, which was her constitutional duty as a monarch.
President Cleveland asked Congress to investigate alleged American involvement in the hawaiian revolution. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations released the Morgan Report, which refuted the Blount Report and exonerated the U.S. military and agents of any wrongdoing. That was the final nail in the coffin. Cleveland withdrew his support for the reinstatement of the deposed queen.
very educational.
Interesting that you stopped so soon, love the video.
I commend you for the hard work.
I would like to see you go past Queen Liliuokalani and her family where are the royals today of
THE KINGDOM OF HAWAI'I
The KINGDOM of Hawai'I has never been part of the United States, totally separate continent one is north America and the other is Oceania.
Mahalo
HRH PRINCESS TIFFANY
KINGDOM OF MAUI, HAWAI'I , OCEANIA
the japanese always disputed the pacific and therefore their kamehameha dragonball reference is not a coincidence
Valeria:It was funny when the camera person put pineapple instead of sugar
Aloha, I enjoyed your brief video, however, I feel it needed to express a few major details you omitted within your presentation. Firstly, Captain Cook and his men first landed on Oahu, where both my great great grandparents lived. They both contracted LEPROSY , and this disease spread to all of Ohau and all of the Hawaiian islands, as Captain Cook and his crew, carried the disease, yet had immunity to it, while the isolated Hawaiian population, did not. The Hawaiian Royal Family created, with the assistance of the Roman Catholic Church, a LEPER COLONY, on the island of Molokai , where both my great great grandparents died, as well as all those quarantined there, by the exposure to Captain Cook and his sailors.
Secondly, the Hawaiian islands were, "Annexed", by both wealthy foreign plantation owners, as well as wealthy protestant missionaries, which , as you eluded to, actually began to hold the majority control of both houses of the Hawaiian Congress. They then passed a law that prevented anyone that did not own a large amount of acreage land, which most Native Hawaiians owned one acre or less, thus forcing them to be unable to vote, as that is the law they passed, where only those owning large amounts of land were entitled to vote. This made it the law of Hawaii, that the majority of Native Hawaiians could no longer even VOTE , in their own country. That is how both Annexation, Territory of the U.S., and U.S. Statehood actually came about.
Lastly, the reason wealthy Americans wanted Hawaii, was , indeed for sugar cane, and sugar, however, this was due to the war that was happening at that time, in the Philippines, between the U.S. and Spain. The U.S. military wanted to have Pearl Harbor, and have a naval base there , to project military power to both the war against Spain, as well as within the South Pacific. But what do I know, as a fourth generation military veteran, born on the fourth of July, right? Aloha Nui Loa, for your video and information, and I do hope my comment helps you, and your viewers understand a bit more of Hawaiian history.
I also know that the U.S. government imprisoned , under house arrest, the last King, Queen, and Princess, of Hawaii, and threatened them with U.S. Marines and a Battle Ship, anchored in Pearl Harbor, if any of them left the Royal Palace, with death and the destruction of the palace. Rather than fight 100K U.S. Marines, with only 40K Hawaiian Royal Guards, the last Queen stood down and allowed Annexation and Statehood to occur after failing to convince the U.S. President to not allow those actions by the U.S. government and the usurped Hawaiian government, to take place.
Again, thank you for your video, and perhaps more people will look into Hawaii, in a more realistic light, instead of simply looking at it as just a nice place to go vacation, while the water supply of the Hawaiian islands is wasted away by every flushed toilet in every luxury hotel room on all of Hawaii's major islands. There is not any Aloha left in the land, nor most of the people in Hawaii, as it is mostly extinct, just like the once proud Hawaiian Natives, gone the same way as the once proud Native American tribes of North America."Ah, but ain't that America, for you and me? Ain't that America, home of the free? Little Pink Houses for you and Me, Yeah?" -John Cougar Mellencamp? Aloha Nui Loa. Mahalo Nui Loa.
Yeah, how dare Cook or someone on his crew have leprosy. Sounds like a moral evil to me to suffer from a disease and to spread it long before anyone even knew how disease spread.
It is my understanding that all citizens of Hawaii were allowed to vote on the statehood referendum. Can you cite a source that Native Hawaiians, or Hawaiian citizens were not allowed to vote on statehood???
Uncle, there weren't a 100K Marines in the entire Corp in 1893 it was only a company sent to protect the US Consulate. They made clear their intentions by saluting the Queen when they passed by the palace on their way to their post. Only the Queen was placed under "house arrest" after she tried to incite rebellion after rebellion, on top of pleading with US President to execute the leaders of the overthrow. She wasn't alive for the statehood.
LIKE your dissecting method on the history of ....
The sandwich Isle transition
to Statehood ...
I really appreciate the straightforward and honest tenor of your presentation.
Thank you! We knew that tackling Hawaii’s history would be a challenge, but we tried our best and hoped our delivery was impartial and accurate.
@@ThatWasHistory What you are missing is that the real cause was the grandchildren of the Missionaries that came over to Hawaii to teach us about god then stole our lands, outlawed our language both written and oral with punishment of prison, then sold lands to Americans only
You make me proud to be hawaiian ko'u āina
Hawaii is beautiful ❤️❤️❤️
Seems like he missed the arrival of the Tahitians to Hawaii. All good though, most people don’t know much of it
Damn, poor hawaians really got screwed out of their land. I hope someday they'll become an independent country once more.
We are working very hard on our independence and are progressing everyday. U.S. rule is coming to an end soon.
@Amendola explain how it's part of the united states
@Amendola prove it....the history books lied about the whole history of Hawaii. How can the US claim Hawaii when its Metes and bounds were registered by our third King because he knew what America was going to do. Under international law we are still an independent country.
@Amendola only of you think you are an American citizen. If you are born in Hawaii you are a Hawaiian national.
@Amendola no they are not. No annexation No treaty with the United states. The overthrow was illegal. Every other country knows the truth.
I should say, The Hawaiian Kingdom is alive, but not well. Kanaka Moli’s are standing strong today. We will see what develops in the days to come.
How can you have a Kingdom without a King or Queen? Besides, Hawaii is a state now.
Carol Mosher
My Dear Carol. The Hawaiian Kingdom still exist even without a representing King or Queen. Legally, according to International Law which supersedes U.S. Law, Hawaii is NOT a State Of The United States. I could write a 1 hour explanation on this, however, I don’t think writing a Presentation on this comment page is what this comment page is for. I do suggest that you watch Dr. Keanu Sai’s 3 hour presentation on TH-cam which not only explains in detail the legalities Of The Illegal Occupancy Of The U.S. in Hawaii, but he also shows legal documentation signed by President Cleveland, President McKinley and other factual documented information showing proof of all his findings. Dr. Sai’s information is without a shadow of a doubt factual otherwise he would not have been able to receive his doctrine in Political Science and International Law.
@@anitamendez116 Couldn't every state in the United make such claims. Yet every state had free, fair and open elections to vote for statehood. No one put a gun to any citizen of Hawaii and forced them to vote to join the Union. Can International law take away the right of sovereign people to vote to join the United States?
Carol Mosher
No...every State in the United States cannot make the same claims. It has to do with Treaties. There was NEVER a Treaty between the U.S. and The Hawaiian Kingdom State (Every Independent Country according to International Law is called a State). Again, we can go back and forth ALL DAY with this, however, you do need to Educate yourself and look at Dr. Keanu Sai’s 3 hour TH-cam presentation then come back and make any comments you want with me.
Carol Mosher
And yes “Guns” were put to peoples head. It’s called trickery, deceit, lies and rain wash.
very good video
as much as I feel for the people of Hawaii and understand why they feel they deserve sovereignty, in today's world I would be scared that if they left the U.S. they would be overthrown by some other nation. the same argument is used when Texans claim they want to leave. they know that immediately Mexico would attempt to take that land. HI has never had a large military or been known for forging empires; as a people they were masters of agricultural innovation and unfortunately a lot of places try to take advantage of that. But surely anyone can appreciate how even though they are part of the United States, the Hawaiians strive to keep their unique culture and traditions? I once spoke with a Hawaiian man who said he didn't consider himself a U.S. citizen. and even today it is unlawful to own any beach property on Hawaii...not even the huge hotels in Honolulu can.
It is illegal now under international law to acquire territory by conquest.
@@pfmcoop and yet China is still in Tibet. The Dalai Lama is still unable to go to his home country because of them.
@@Vailjnovelist yes. This is widely regarded as also illegal. Same as Crimea.
...California, Texas et al was territory of Mexico before USA....en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Cession
@@pfmcoop And yet Russia just annexed Crimea and China is trying to annex the entire South China Sea.
BTW Hawaiians voted by a massive 93% margin to join the union in an extremely free and fair election. That's not annexation by any historical standard. Well, except by a racist standard were non-natives aren't considered "Hawaiian" enough.
Haole ( not Hawaiian😁 ) spitting knowledge and facts that I nevah knew! ✌
"Joon eelevynth is kuhmayamaya day"
xıvıx Theottis Levon Beelzabuster Guss-Smith lol ikr i was cringing KA-MEE-AA-MEE-A
Thank you "That Was History" for posting this Video. Can you post more Videos on the History of Hawai'i please?
I feel so sorry for Hawaiians. The Invaders came to the Land and taught the Bible. When they started taking over, the Native People couldn't retaliate because of what they were being taught from the Bible. I can imagine that they would have been told or came to the realisation of how they would've felt like they would be condemned if they retaliated. It's an absolute deceit of the very Book that those Invaders held in the Hands.
The Ten Commandment speak about this. Thou shall not shall not steal. Also, thou shall not envy thy Neighbour. The Invaders clearly didn't give a Pineapple about any of that.
I was actually thinking about what happened to Hawai'i and its People, without even having watched these Videos on the History of Hawai'i and I had a Feeling that things like that happened. I checked the Videos and what I was thinking about is exactly what happened. It's messed up.
Hawai'i has been infected in so many ways. Infected with Sugar and everything else.
There are Channels that reveal similar History on Hawai'i's USA Annexing. They are "Johnny Harris", "Weird History", "Mastering Knowledge", "AJ+", "Overly Sarcastic Productions" and "Thinktech Hawaii".
Well done, sir.
We appreciate that! Thank you for watching.
My very most hot-spot in the western world .... Love to visit
Pretty good, but you left out A Lot of information. The Hawaiian Government was taken over (illegally), not the Hawaiian Kingdom. The United States wanted a Treaty to completely take over Hawaii, however, that Treaty was NEVER agreed upon by the Hawaiian Kingdom or the Hawaiian People. The Hawaiian Kingdom has, is and will ALWAYS be in effect. With that said, Hawaii has always been a Sovereign Nation. Legally, Hawaii NEVER gave up it’s Independence. The Hawaiian Kingdom is alive and well.
What about the vote in 1959?
Carol Mosher
Who’s vote?
@@anitamendez116 The citizens of Hawaii.
@@carolmosher7745 no Hawaiian voted for statehood, none! People were fed lies! The truth is coming out, just look at the number of countries that still recognize the Kingdom of Hawai'i as a sovereign nation.
@@wotaised Actually about 95% of Hawaiians voted for statehood. It's recorded in dozens of officials sources. Just look it up yourself.
Honolulu in Arabic means "here is Pearl" and Hawaii Naqa in Arabic means "Fresh Air". Take that for whatever it's worth.
I'm Hawaiian, lean the real Hawaiian history.
Good video!
Thanks so much! Glad you enjoyed it!
That Resolution has no power outside of it's boundaries. The occupation is coming to an end!
LOL
Eõ!!!✊🏽🙌🏽✊🏽🙌🏽✊🏽🙌🏽Ku Kia'i Mauna!!!
@@omggiiirl2077 Ku Kia'i TMT!!!
Yes I miss the inbreeding
@@christiancramerhawaiirealt5690 do you feel good about yourself? It must make you feel SO great to antagonize people who are struggling to protect that which they hold dear. But maybe you dont understand. Because you come seem to act like you come from a people who are used to exploiting, taking, and imposing on others, instead of knowing the land of you come from and loving that. Instead of talking about inbreeding and wanting a giant 30 meter telescope on a mountain that you have absolutely no spiritual and cultural connection to, why dont you focus on the inbreeding your people do, especially that which has taken place to birth your pitiful self. And asking you to focus on connecting with the land of your ancestors is as fruitless as asking a wolf to willfully go vegan. Your people haven't had any intimate connection with any land since in forever. All they've done is just take from others and try to act as if its theirs, and with the nerve to try and be offended by "illegal immigrants" "taking over". The sad part is, is that you guys run around acting as if you're so great, and it's the thing to be American, but it's all delusion, and your greed. You'd actually have an argument if Amerikkka actually did things like keep its word, and stop the thefts, and bullying, and actually took steps to take care of Hawaiians, but our people are actually doing worse since territory and Statehood. You guys can't even take care of the country you stole on the continent, so it boggles me why you guys even want to impose upon us, when we never wanted you here. And if you dont like us, please leave, because we would be so happy. Mahalo
The video was done rather well. More work should've been done talking about Hawaiian resistance, the Kūʻē Anti-Annexation Petition of 1898, the support of President Cleveland in restoring the throne, and the invasion by the U.S. marines in 1893. I think a little more effort could've gone into the motives for Kalākaua`s actions, namely his push for nationalism, the 1881 journey around the world, the technological advancements and modernization he brought, and what these "threats" meant to the American interests that would become the "Hawaiian League" who forced the 1887 Bayonet Constitution. The works of James Kaulia and the Hui Aloha ʻĀina should have also had a mention to reinforce the facts that Hawaiians under no circumstance stood idle towards foreign aggression, and absolutely did not want annexation by any foreign power, American or otherwise. A note should also have been put in that the 1993 Apology and the quote used for this video should have included notes of the secret correspondences by the Secretary of the Navy to Minister John L. Stevens with direct orders to support American agents in Hawaiʻi (Thurston and the illegal Provisional Government) to create a Provisional Government. A final note should be included about the illegality of a joint resolution to annex a foreign country, and that the current legality of the "State" as an official agency is completely illegal. No Treaty of Annexation = No legal Provisional Government = No legal Territory of Hawaiʻi = No State of Hawaiʻi.
Didn't Queen Liliuokalani try to abrogate the constitution, overthrow the government, unilaterally create her own constitution, increase her autocratic powers, strengthen a more absolute monarchy and instruct the military to defend her revolution with force? YES.
Didn't the insurgents find out about her illegal and unconstitutional plot, lead a counter-revolution, depose her and take control of the government? YES.
Didn't the Queen surrender and later sign an abdication letter where she took oath to the constitution, reliquished sovereign claims, and acknowledge the Provisional Government? YES.
Didn't the Republic of Hawaii have control of the government and country? YES.
Didn't the Republic of Hawaii request annexation from the United States? YES.
Didn't the Republic of Hawaii unanimously pass a Treaty of Annexation in _their_ Legislature that later failed to pass through the U.S. Senate? YES.
Didn't the U.S. eventual accept the annexation and memorialize it with a joint resolution? YES.
Didn't the U.S. also annex the Republic of Texas, a sovereign and independent country, with a joint resolution and it was FORTY ONE times bigger than Hawaii? YES.
Wasn't the Newlands Resolution passed with a TWO THIRDS majority by BOTH the Senate and the House of Representatives, which is stronger than the approval criteria required for a treaty? YES.
Did the United States and Republic of Hawaii accept, abide and act according to the Newlands Resolution? YES.
Didn't all of the Kingdom's allies and treaty holders provide formal, written and de facto recognition of the Provisional Government, Republic of Hawaii and Annexation? YES.
Are there any U.S. or International laws of 1898 that state that a country must use a treaty (and only a treaty) to annex foreign land? NO.
I recently came from a trip to Oahu, and as a brown person, I can tell how people are treated differently. For example, we ordered food at a local Hawaiin restaurant, they treated us as family. Next thing we know, a group of 5 white tourist enter the shop and they don't get a hello, nor the same treatment. I now understand the locals and they way of treating tourist. It's not aloha all the time, and it's totally understandable. I hope they gain sovereignty.
did you just approve of racial discrimination? What a sad, sad day.
Sorry, braddah, we all need to treat each other as one ohana. Nobody is alive to bear responsibility for the crimes committed by kanaka and haole. We all need to love each other and treat each other with respect. In Hawai'i, racism is a two-way street and kanaka no different than haole. Everyone hates someone who hates someone... It's not healthy.
Thank U for your video. I view u video several times more & take notes. A very informative video about Hawaii.
Lived in Hawaii all my 55 years great info family dates back to the battle of nuuanu
Are you half/half cause you have a Samoan last name
@@43hayn not samoan name two L's french name
ALYUHAUUHA THE HEAVENLY FATHER BE ESTEEMED and Cover you
Thank you so much
I really like your approach to making videos. Well done!
Thank you so much! Glad you’re enjoying our content.
The least people could say is "your part of history now lol."
Totally agree with the native Hawaiians as it was fucked up (I think that short phrase is accurate) how the U.S. got it to be a state. But, at the same time, there is concern, in my mind, that if a new government should form, what would happen? What about the millions who own homes here and the economy? By the way, great job with the online history lesson🌈😃🤙
I'm from Hawaii and I agree Hawaii had to become part of the United states in order to stay relevant as a nation!
I think that Hawaii should remain a state. But I think Tribal/natives from all US lands should be given several areas of latitude.
In Hawaii that would mean tax incentives for native Hawaiians that helps keep them in their homes and grow their way of life. They should be able to collectively monitor land sales to prevent billionaires from buying everything.
Though this talked a lot about events after unification, I still think this was a pretty good video. Nice job.
HAWAIIAN LANDS HAWAIIAN HANDS
attitudes like yours cause civil wars.
Thank you. History is messy, and complicated, and someone always gets shafted.
Give back what was stolen, Hawaiian Lands to Hawaiian Hands.
Too bad your own king kamehameha traded Land in Hawaii for rights to export sugar to the US. The Hawaiian kingdom didn’t value their hand so someone else is owning it. Hawaii is part of the US and now the 8 islands are being taken care of better than they ever were.
Keep Hawaiian lands in Hawaii lands
You haoles are selfish and are the complete opposite of kapu aloha so if you come to our islands and even try act Hawaiian you have plenty of karma coming for you
Mixer Hawaiian I’d conquer your shitty lazy island with 5 good men.
@@T.williz An who the fuck are you?Dude sit down. You don't run shit. I live that aloha and could care less what you think.
It suxs I love my hawaii
We are strong people
Love and aloha ... we live by I
I will forgive but never forget .
You need to do one for Puerto Rico.
Thanks for commenting! We've been tossing around the idea of making a history video for Puerto Rico. Would you prefer it to be in a similar format as the Hawaii video?
Hawaii is so beautiful😍😍😍😍😍😍😍
Look bottom line is that the world is a nasty place full of competition. The Hawaiians lacked the military capabilities to defend their sovereignty. It is very simple, they could not defend and keep their home. If not the USA it would have been Japan or another country. Hawaiians should be glad it was the USA who ended up with control. Otherwise say goodbye to all those traditions, music, people, etc. Japan would have cleaned house.
It was interesting how sad music only played when Americans were killed but not when something bad happened to the natives.
They never stole a long boat why would they steal a long boat when they had boats already. Get your facts straight how do you think we found the islands swim? Cook had unfortunate timing and was mistaken for the God Lono and was killed because they thought he was a reincarnation. Cook went back to his ships gathered his men and tried to retaliate. Which led to war were cook was killed with gun and sword in hand look it up bro. I am truly offended by your wrong information Cook should of been killed before he even stepped foot on the islands because all his sickness and disease killed off most of our people and he also took people as slaves too. So he got what he deserved.(shark teeth battle club to his head) I guess the Christian's call us Heathens because we worship the old gods or I do anyways( Ke Akua, Lono, Pele etc.)
Lol he also admitted to western diseases and taxation in this video lol..8:25
808supa43 I am Hawaiian, the longboat was stolen for the iron used to hold the boat together. Because there are no metal ores in Hawaii, this was a precious commodity to us. In addition, check this out...www.fair-wind.com/history-of-kealakekua-captain-cook/...the Hawaiian reprovisioned Cook's ship generously. 808supa, I do understand your take on this because lots of accounts don't mention the boat was taken for it's iron. Aloha i kekahi i kekahi kanaka.
How come the Hawaiians didn't kill George Vancouver when he came back to Hawaii?
@@jordankahele14 "he also admitted to western diseases" Wow, he "admitted" to disease, eh? Sounds about as rational as the rest of your comment. Of course the guy stole the longboat, and your reasoning why he "couldn't" have is flimsy as hell.
@@konaleona Thanks for correcting his ignorance. It seems like there was a stupid and terrible escalation on both sides as the guy who stole it was just a criminal, and the Hawaiians, realising the mob fucked up killing Cook, did *try* to repair the damage.
Continuing with fourth comment to Sunny Sied.
After two failed attempts to acquire Hawai‘i by a treaty, which is international law, from an insurgency established by the United States diplomat on January 17, 1893, and admitted by President Grover Cleveland to be unlawful, the United States Congress enacted a joint resolution “purporting” to annex the Hawaiian Islands on July 6, 1898, and President William McKinley signed it into United States law the following day. The President and Congress stated it was a military necessity to annex the Hawaiian Islands during the Spanish-American War in order to protect the west coast of the United States from foreign invasion.
The joint resolution was introduced as House Resolution no. 259 on May 4, 1898, after the Senate could not garner enough votes to ratify a so-called treaty of annexation. During the debate in the Senate, a list of Senators rebuked the theory that a joint resolution has the effect of annexing a foreign territory.
Senator Augustus Bacon, stated, “The proposition which I propose to discuss is that a measure which provides for the annexation of foreign territory is necessarily, essentially, the subject matter of a treaty, and that the assumption of the House of Representatives in the passage of the bill and the proposition on the part of the Foreign Relations Committee that the Senate shall pass the bill, is utterly without warrant in the Constitution [31 Cong. Rec. 6145 (June 20, 1898)].”
Senator William Allen stated, “A Joint Resolution if passed becomes a statute law. It has no other or greater force. It is the same as if it would be if it were entitled ‘an act’ instead of ‘A Joint Resolution.’ That is its legal classification. It is therefore impossible for the Government of the United States to reach across its boundary into the dominion of another government and annex that government or persons or property therein. But the United States may do so under the treaty making power [31 Cong. Rec. 6636 (July 4, 1898)].”
Senator Thomas Turley stated, “The Joint Resolution itself, it is admitted, amounts to nothing so far as carrying any effective force is concerned. It does not bring that country within our boundaries. It does not consummate itself [31 Cong. Rec. 6339 (June 25, 1898)].”
In a speech in the Senate where the Senators knew that the 1897 treaty was not ratified, Senator Stephen White stated, “Will anyone speak to me of a ‘treaty’ when we are confronted with a mere proposition negotiated between the plenipotentiaries of two countries and ungratified by a tribunal-this Senate-whose concurrence is necessary? There is no treaty; no one can reasonably aver that there is a treaty. No treaty can exist unless it has attached to it not merely acquiescence of those from whom it emanates as a proposal. It must be accepted-joined in by the other party. This has not been done. There is therefore, no treaty [31 Cong. Rec. Appendix, 591 (June 21, 1898)].”
Senator Allen also rebuked that the joint resolution was a contract or agreement with the so-called Republic of Hawai‘i. He stated, “Whenever it becomes necessary to enter into any sort of compact or agreement with a foreign power, we cannot proceed by legislation to make that contract [31 Cong. Rec. 6636 (July 4, 1898)].”
According to Westel Willoughby, a United States constitutional scholar, “The constitutionality of the annexation of Hawaii, by a simple legislative act, was strenuously contested at the time both in Congress and by the press. The right to annex by treaty was not denied, but it was denied that this might be done by a simple legislative act…Only by means of treaties, it was asserted, can the relations between States be governed, for a legislative act is necessarily without extraterritorial force-confined in its operation to the territory of the State by whose legislature it is enacted.”
Ninety years later, in 1988, the United States Attorney General reviewed these Congressional records and in a legal opinion stated, “Notwithstanding these constitutional objections, Congress approved the joint resolution and President McKinley signed the measure in 1898. Nevertheless, whether this action demonstrates the constitutional power of Congress to acquire territory is certainly questionable.” The Attorney General then concluded, “It is therefore unclear which constitutional power Congress exercised when it acquired Hawaii by joint resolution.”
Hawai‘i was never a part of the United States, and has been under an illegal and prolonged occupation since the Spanish-American War.
Sources of international law are, in rank of precedence: international conventions, international custom, general principles of law recognized by civilized nations, and judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations (Statute of the International Court of Justice, Article 38). The legislation of every state, to include the United States of America and its Congress, is not a source of international law, but rather a source of municipal law of the state whose legislature enacted it. In The Lotus, the International Court stated, “Now the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a State is that-failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary-it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State (Lotus, PCIJ, ser. A no. 10, 18 (1927).” According to Crawford, derogation of this principle will not be presumed, which he refers to as the Lotus presumption (James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law 34 (2d ed. 2006).
Since Congressional legislation, whether by a statute or a joint resolution, has no extraterritorial effect, it is not a source of international law, which “governs relations between independent States (Lotus, at 18).” The U.S. Supreme Court has always adhered to this principle. The U.S. Supreme Court stated,
“Neither the Constitution nor the laws passed in pursuance of it have any force in foreign territory unless in respect of our own citizens, and operations of the nation in such territory must be governed by treaties, international understandings and compacts, and the principles of international law (United States v. Curtiss Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 318 (1936).”
There is no United States or International Law of 1898 that declares a treaty _(and only a treaty)_ can be used for annexation of foreign land. The U.S. has aquired foreign land in many different ways, which shows that joint resolution was part of established customs and norms. ✔
The Republic of Hawaii requested to be annexed by the United States. The Hawaiian legislature unanimously agreed to annexation and passed their Treaty of Annexation. ✔
On the U.S. side, the President wanted annexation, and two-thirds of the Senate AND two-thirds of the House of Representatives voted for annexation by passing the Newlands Resolution. Since both Houses ratified the Resolution with a TWO-THIRDS majority, it exceeds the criteria of Treaty. ✔
The Treaty of Annexation (Hawaii) and the Newlands Resolution (United States) are two documents, related and in agreement with one another with a common intent to bind both parties in a _BILATERAL_ agreement. This met the legal requirement for a mutually, acceptable agreement. Moreover, Hawai'i and the United States abided by this agreement and behaved accordingly. That further reinforces the agreement because it shows common acceptance and practice. They defined the treaty and followed it. ✔
The U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations delivered the Morgan Report on February 26, 1894, which refuted the Blount Report and exonerated the actions of the U.S. military. No other congressional report has refuted this report and concluded that the U.S. government or military enacted a foreign policy to overthrow the Hawaiian Monarchy. ✔
All of the allies and treaty holders of the Hawaiian Kingdom provided de facto, formal and written recognition of the Provisional Government, Republic of Hawaii and Annexation. The international community legitimized every phase of the Kingdom's transition from country to territory to state. ✔
The U.S. has used acts and joint resolutions in lieu of treaties many times (such as the annexation of Texas and Hawai'i, ending of World War I, etc). Please refer to *"Acts and Joint Resolutions of Congress as Substitutes for Treaties"* (James W. Garner) www.jstor.org/stable/2190424 ✔✔✔
wow.
No Treaty of Annexation
It was a treaty, voted in by 93% of the population. Or are white people no longer people? Build the Hawaiian wall?
Christobanistan It was not a treaty. It was a joint resolution.
@@peperomia117 OK, no matter. The point is the entire population voted for it, and it passed by 97%. The voice of the people could not have been clearer or more resounding.
@@christobanistan8887 there was no treaty of annexation. it was defeated in 1898 because the Hawaiian subjects protested through ku'e petitions. By the time the people "voted," they had already fallen victim to denationlization by America. The children (Hawaiian subjects but included Japanese, Hawaii aboriginal people and all other ethnicities) were stripped of their identities beginning in 1906 through the American school system. Hawaiian language was banned and they were beaten and told they were American. They were subjected to this type of genocide and of course, through this were brainwashed into thinking being American was a privilege. If not for the American interference of brainwashing and the influx of foreigners gaining "right to vote" do you think the outcome would have been the same? The Hawaiian Kingdom far surpassed American idealogies and technologies. It wasn't the Hawaiian Kingdom that needed the US, it was the other way around.
You don't need a treaty of annexation to Annex territory
Continuing with second comment to Sunny Sied;
When the Spanish-American War broke out, President McKinley proclaimed that the Spanish-American war would “be conducted upon principles in harmony with the present views of nations and sanctioned by their recent practice,” and acknowledged the constraints and protection international laws provide to all sovereign states, whether belligerent or neutral. As noted by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge during the Senate’s secret session, Hawai`i, as a sovereign and neutral state, was no exception when it was occupied by the United States during its war with Spain. Article 43 of the 1899 Hague Convention, II, which remained the same under the 1907 amended Hague Convention, IV, delimits the power of the occupant and serves as a fundamental bar on its free agency within an occupied State, whether belligerent or neutral.
On April 25, 1898, the U.S. Congress declared war against Spain and battles were fought in the Spanish colonies of the Philippines and Guam in the Pacific, and the Spanish colonies of Cuba and Puerto Rico in the Caribbean. Although fighting ceased in Puerto Rico and Cuba on July 25 under an armistice agreement signed in Washington, D.C., fighting continued in the Philippines until August 13 when a second armistice was signed. Both armistices suspended hostilities pending the negotiation of a treaty of peace that was eventually signed in Paris on December 10, 1898.
Before the first armistice was signed, President McKinley sent directives to the Secretary of War on July 13, 1898 regarding occupations by U.S. troops during the war. This prompted the Secretary of War to publish General Orders No. 101 and was provided to all commanders of U.S. troops, to include the commander of troops that occupied the Hawaiian Kingdom, which took place on August 12, 1898, one year before the armistice was signed suspending hostilities in the Philippines. General Orders No. 101 clearly reflects the United States recognition of customary international law regarding the law of occupation, which are the same provisions codified in the 1899 Hague Convention, II.
The commanders of U.S. troops occupying the Hawaiian Kingdom since August 12, 1898 disregarded General Orders No. 101. The failure of the commanders of U.S. troops in the Hawaiian Kingdom to comply with General Orders No. 101 and international humanitarian law, to include its current commander of the U.S. Pacific Command and is why war crimes have and continue to be committed on a monumental scale.
President McKinley issued General Orders No. 101 towards the occupation of _Cuba_ after the Spanish-American war. This _presidential_ order was directly applicable to the U.S. military occupation of Cuba and didn't even mention anything about Hawai'i, let alone the _alleged_ occupation of Hawai'i. The U.S. military was not in violation of General Order No. 101 because the General (President McKinley, the Commander in Chief) never issued this order to the U.S. Military in Hawai'i. I read the Order and there's no mention of Hawai'i whatsoever.
There was no U.S. 'military occupation' or 'war crimes' in Hawai'i. In order to have war crimes you need to have a _WAR._ If you want an example of U.S. style military invasion and occupation, then look Cuba (1898) or the long-term and bloody conflict of Haiti in 1915. That's a REAL military invasion and occupation. Anyone who claims there was U.S.-Hawai'i war or military occupation is just spreading pure propaganda. There was no shelling of the coast by the U.S.S. Boston, no planned and coordinated assault by the marines, no fighting in the streets of Honolulu from hale to hale, no raiding and burning down of 'Iolani Palace, no fighting, no major bloodshed, no casualties, no War. Nothing. How can you have war crimes with no war? The overthrow was overwhelmingly peaceful as far as coup d'etats go. Compare and contrast that with Kamehameha's 20 year, bloody military *conquest* of the Hawaiin archipelago, which involved 12,000 men, 1,000 war canoes, tradition and modern weaponry (such as canons) and MANY casualties. There is no record in the history books of war between the United States and the Hawaiian Kingdom/Republic of Hawaii. The United Nations doesn't note any military occupation or state of war (past or present) between those countries. Why? Because the United States and Hawai'i NEVER entered a state or war, which is the _PREREQUISITE_ for a state of military occupation.
What Iraq did to Kuwait when they invaded and overthrew Kuwaits government then claim it now belonging to Iraq, is the same thing the U.S did to the Hawaiian Kingdom and still yet today.. And guess who was the first to point out Iraq's violation of international laws and attacked Iraq militarily? Yep the hypercrit U.S. The Hawaiian kingdom was never legally annexed for there was no treaty signed by the Hawaiian kingdom because the U.S overthrew the Hawaiian kingdoms government therfore their annexation is invalid and illegal.
The U.S. intervened in Kuwait for several reasons: 1) humanitarian, 2) modern international laws, 3) Iraq was challenging U.S. presence and influence in the Middle East, 4) it was an enemy of it's allies Saudi Arabia and Israel and 5) the oil industry. Basically, Iraq tried to flex and got knocked on its ass.
When the rebels overthrew the Hawaiian Monarchy, all of the Kingdom's allies and treaty holders provided written and de facto recognition of the Provisional Government, Republic of Hawaii and the Annexation. No international power came to provide any military help to Hawai'i. Why? Most countried understood that the Americans had the most influence and control of Hawai'i and, as a country, it couldn't stand on its own two legs without being propped up by a stronger power. The world thought it was a weak nation. Even President Cleveland called it "feeble." The Hawaiian newspaper The Liberal (owned and operated by Wilcox) stated that, if the Kingdom could be overthrown so easily, then the country didn't deserve to exist. Strong words, but accurate.
@@sunnysied713 even if your explanation were true, that is still not justified. Bottom line, without a treaty from any government (no matter what size or how strong) there is no annexation. At least a legal annexation. In this case the Hawaiian Kingdoms government was ILLEGALLY overthrown therefore it is impossible for it to be annexed per international law aswell U.S laws. In fact the international courts has already ruled aswell submitted written notice to the United States that they are illegally occupying the Hawaiian kingdom and their annexation is illegal and fraudulent. Even the U.S Federal court admitted that fact. So all the other rest you try to point out whether true or not is insignificant.
@@oneloveyessah
There is no United States or International Law of 1898 that declares a treaty _(and only a treaty)_ can be used for annexation of foreign land. The U.S. has aquired foreign land in many different ways, which shows that joint resolution was part of established customs and norms. ✔
The Republic of Hawaii requested to be annexed by the United States. The Hawaiian legislature unanimously agreed to annexation and passed their Treaty of Annexation. ✔
On the U.S. side, the President wanted annexation, and two-thirds of the Senate AND two-thirds of the House of Representatives voted for annexation by passing the Newlands Resolution. Since both Houses ratified the Resolution with a TWO-THIRDS majority, it exceeds the criteria of Treaty. ✔
The Treaty of Annexation (Hawaii) and the Newlands Resolution (United States) are two documents, related and in agreement with one another with a common intent to bind both parties in a _BILATERAL_ agreement. This met the legal requirement for a mutually, acceptable agreement. Moreover, Hawai'i and the United States abided by this agreement and behaved accordingly. That further reinforces the agreement because it shows common acceptance and practice. They defined the treaty and followed it. ✔
The U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations delivered the Morgan Report on February 26, 1894, which refuted the Blount Report and exonerated the actions of the U.S. military. No other congressional report has refuted this report and concluded that the U.S. government or military enacted a foreign policy to overthrow the Hawaiian Monarchy. ✔
All of the allies and treaty holders of the Hawaiian Kingdom provided de facto, formal and written recognition of the Provisional Government, Republic of Hawaii and Annexation. The international community legitimized every phase of the Kingdom's transition from country to territory to state. ✔
The U.S. has used acts and joint resolutions in lieu of treaties many times (such as the annexation of Texas and Hawai'i, ending of World War I, etc). Please refer to *"Acts and Joint Resolutions of Congress as Substitutes for Treaties"* (James W. Garner) www.jstor.org/stable/2190424 ✔✔✔
Furthermore, Queen Liliuokalani tried to illegally overthrow the government just like Kamehameha V had illegaly done in 1864. Larsen v Hawaiian Kingdom was dismissed by the PCA and proved nothing about the Hawaiian Kingdom's alleged perpetuity. The United Nations backpedaled away from de Zaya's statement about "strange occupation" and they publicly stated that it's his own independent opinion, not the official position of the U.N.. The Department of Justice can share an opinion, but they have no legislative or judicial power. Dr. Sai's legal argument is very weak and based on flimsy logic, propaganda and lies. You can't take today's laws and retroactively apply them to events that happened BEFORE they were even created.
@10:48
KamehaCare!
I'll see my way out, now.