Summary of Andy Anderson's Most Controversial Main Points in his Position Paper on Hawaiian Sovereignty, July/August 2002

Here are the most controversial of Andy Anderson's main points in his position paper on Hawaiian sovereignty, July/August, 2002; in the order in which he stated them. Many false or misleading statements are made by Andy, and some of them are rebutted in a commentary by Ken Conklin. But here are Andy's most controversial main points, without rebuttal.

Hawaiian language was supressed; and as a result, Hawaiians lost their ability to think as Hawaiians. As more and more of their culture and traditions were submerged by a language, a way of life and a value system that came from distant continents, they came perilously close to losing their homeland.

In light of the apology bill, the United States is likely to face adverse action by a world court regarding the overthrow and annexation.

To avoid unpleasant consequences, the Governor of the State of Hawai'i must enable Hawaiians to exercise the right of self-determination, but must be helpful without being intrusive.

In the 1893 overthrow, Queen Lili'uokalani surrendered temporarily, under protest, to the superior forces of the United States.

President Cleveland sent James Blount to investigate the overthrow, made a statement to Congress that the U.S. was guilty of aggression against a weak and trustful Hawai'i, and demanded that the Provisional Government restore Lili'uokalani to the throne.

Several years later Annexation took place by an illegal joint resolution of Congress, despite 38,000 signatures on a petition opposing it (nearly every Native Hawaiian alive at the time).

Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law, says the apology bill is a confession of a crime that would warrant international pressure to force the U.S. to restore Hawai'i's independence.

Native Hawaiians have a right to demand that Hawai'i be given independence. But they also have a right to seek other remedies. The government of the State of Hawai'i must support whatever Native Hawaiians demand, to avoid the acrimonious and divisive debate that would otherwise surely follow. Hawaiians are angry at the loss of their Kingdom, but not at today's residents who lack Hawaiian blood.

Native Hawaiians want an acknowledgment that the overthrow and annexation were wrong; and then they want justice. Justice would include having the U.S. pay Native Hawaiians for the use of U.S. military bases in Hawai'i, just as the U.S. pays for the use of land for military bases in other pacific island nations.

Hawaiians continue to suffer as their entitlements come under attack. The Supreme Court decision in Rice v. Cayetano snatches away Native Hawaiian control of the agency created by the voters of Hawai'i in the Constitutional Convention of 1978. Bishop Estate, created under Kingdom law by a Native Hawaiian ali'i, is now threatened with a loss of its tax exemption as Kamehameha School is forced to allow a non-Hawaiian to enroll. The governor must help Kamehameha School find some way to preserve its tax exemption and also preserve its Hawaiians-only admissions tradition.

Andy's position paper ends with the familiar bumper-sticker phrase: Without Hawaiians there would be no Aloha.


You may now