Forlorn in the USA
Last November, at the end of a trip, I spent a few days on Oahu, Hawaii. The Oahu Visitors Bureau description:
More than you imagined, more than you knew, Oahu is a rich and rewarding destination. Beyond the turquoise waters, the pristine beaches, and the razor-edged mountains, there's a legacy of royalty, a delicious blend of Pacific influences
and the luxurious pace of island relaxation.
is fine, as far as it goes. Sure I saw (and wallowed in) the turquoise waters, gaped at the razor-edged mountains, sipped on the Pacific influenced cocktails (must have missed the pristine beaches). But I also found a darker side to the island, and I'm not just talking about the warnings about car break-ins and avoiding the Leeward Coast.
My last two days on this slightly spoilt tropical isle saw an escape from the traffic jams around Waikiki and Honolulu and take a drive up to the north shore (where I watched strange people bodysurf chunky little shore breaks that were guaranteed to dump them into the sand), before heading back via the scenic windward coast. It was here that it became apparent that not all were content living in this little slice of USA governed paradise, for, seated by the side of the road were several banner wielding locals. It was clear that they weren't just another roadside stall selling coconuts or pineapples, they were proclaiming dissent!
Who would have thought it - here were people who not only lived in a (slightly spoilt) tropical paradise, but one embraced within the borders of the USA - and they were unhappy. Not about the paradise bit mind you, it was the bit about being a state in the union. I pulled over and spent a good half hour chatting with these protestors (well, actually I stopped at a wood carving store just down the road, but then popped over to see the protestors afterwards).
According to the comprehensive historical account in my Lonely Planet, Hawaii was formally annexed by the USA in 1898. This came after a couple of years of unrest where some American businessmen seized control of Hawaii from Queen Liliuokalani and declared it their own 'republic'. The LP told me that US President Grover Cleveland at first voiced his disapproval of the coup, but ultimately did nothing to restore power to native Hawaiians.
Apparently there has always been some dissent among the locals as to whether being part of the US was a good thing, but in recent years there has been more interest in this issue. The people I stopped and spoke to told me (as indeed my guidebook already had) that some of the recent interest in the movement was as a result of dissatisfaction with the outcome of a court decision that invalidated a law that allowed only people of native Hawaiian ancestry to vote for trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The ruling of the supreme court said that native Hawaiians are a racial group, not a tribe that has a political relationship with the USA, and that it was therefore discriminatory to disallow non-native residents from voting in such elections. This has lead to concerns that programs which direct specific funding for native Hawaiians could be under threat and had also thrown doubt on the idea of a model where Hawaiians as a sovereign people might achieve self government as a nation within a nation.
Interestingly, when I tried to draw some comparisons with the issues facing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders here in Australia, my comments were dismissed and I was informed that unlike the indigenous people of Australia and some other nations, the Kingdom of Hawaii was recognized as a sovereign and independent nation among the world community of nations, and had established diplomatic ties with a number of nations before this whole business with the US happened.
Ok I said, what about the Kingdom aspect, does the movement want the royalty back as part of government? The answer from these protestors was yes, but they also explained that the last three kings and queens were elected, and yes, apparently there are plenty of people around with bloodline claims to the throne.
And what about those military bases? Do they really think that the US is just going to move out, and wouldn't that have an impact upon the economy? I was told that it would probably be ok for the US to keep the bases provided they pay market rates for leasing the land.
My earliest recollection of being aware of the existence of Hawaii was watching the Brady Bunch go on hols there and meet some ukulele playing locals. It had never occurred to me that some of these locals would want out of the USA. One website on the subject - Hawaii Independent & Sovereign - includes a blog providing updates on efforts to gain independence. I get the impression that there is not overall agreement about the nature of the change required, but the movement is still moving along (erk).
From what I understand of the history if the situation, I can sympathize with the Hawaiians' desire to assume an independent status, but as to whether it would actually work out in real life, I'm not so sure.
