Perspectives on Tibet and Hawaii

Before I get into the nativist movement now hitting Hawaii, and any parallels with Tibet, allow me to address for a moment the issue of perspective.

At its best moments, this blog and its readers’ postings bring together a richness of perspective that none of us has on our own. That occurred for me this week.

A couple of days ago, I picked out a photo to post with an item about the violence that erupted on the Olympic torch relay in Seoul on Sunday. There were several reasons I chose the photo, which shows a Chinese protester kicking a South Korean protester in the back (see lower on this page). One of the main reasons I picked the photo is so entirely mundane that you probably won’t believe it. But here goes anyway.

Our company pays for service from the Associated Press, the global news cooperative, so that photo was legally available to me. I can’t post pictures from AFP, Reuters or Xinhua say. We don’t pay for them.

The second reason is that it is an emotive, powerful photo. 

But several readers quickly pointed out that the photo appeared to be misleading. Click here to see a photo of the “kicked” guy holding up a bicycle over his head. (We don’t have rights to reprint the photo here.) It appears to be a threatening gesture. Was he threatening to toss the bicycle at Chinese counter-protesters? I don’t know. Some Chinese websites suggest he brought on the violence himself. Again, I don’t know. But the added perspective certainly tempers the inclination to “believe” what one’s eyes might indicate initially was an unprovoked attack.

Thanks, readers, for helping offer as many angles and perspectives as possible.

So you may have heard that native Hawaiian sovereignty advocates are on the move. They briefly chained shut the gates of the Iolani palace in Honolulu Wednesday, demanding restoration of the Hawaiian monarchy.

About 60 people took part in what they called a protest of U.S. occupation of the islands.

Hawaii became the 50th U.S. state in 1959, and it now has more than its share of pina colada-sipping tourists, golfers, mainland surfers, condo owners and U.S. military personnel.

Now, would it be far-fetched to declare that the ornate Iolani palace is Honolulu’s equivalent of Lhasa’s Potala Palace?

Over the years, the Iolani Palace also served as a de facto prison for the islands’ last monarch, Queen Liliuokalani. It fell into neglect, then was restored in the 1970s as a National Historic Landmark. It has a gift shop and is open for tours.

So is Hawaii today what Tibet will be like in 30 years? Overrun with mainlanders who find the nativists amusing and quaint, scoffing at claims of sovereignty? 

Comments

[Khanbaliq]

Key difference: There is no foreign powers behind Hawaiian sovereignty movement.

[Dave]

Down with the Haoli!

[jeff]

I respect those Hawaii nativists' claim. But doesn't Hawaii belong to the people of the US including those Hawaii natives? Are we sure they are Hawaii natives? Aren't human ancestors all come from African or Mars?

[RY]

The US will only restore the Hawaiian monarch if the natives wear orange robe and chant "peach and compassion".

[Ted]

"Key difference: There is no foreign powers behind Hawaiian sovereignty movement."

You to open your head and do some research.

The point being made is that the PRC is doing to Tibet what Americans did to Hawaii.

The real issue in Hawaii is about land ownership. large amount of land was taken from hawaii natives to create sugar cane plantations. the hawaiin sovereignity movement is about return land taken forcibly from them in the 19th century.

which gets to a good question for Tibet.

In Tibet are Tibetan natives allowed to own their own land? Or is all of the land in Tibet owned by the government and Han chinese. The answer to that question will get to the heart of what is wrong with Tibet.

[jeff]

Ted

All land in China is owned by the state. There are no privately owned land. Anyone buy land in China only have the right to use it, not own it.

[jeff]

Here is the link of an interesting article in the CSM. What CCP stands for? Chinese Confucian Party?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0501/p09s02-coop.html

[Khanbaliq]

Ted, My point is it is the Western powers that made Tibet an issue.

[Ted]

It was the Tibetans who made Tibet an issue by publicly disagreeing with the CCP.

After talking to several friends from mainland china, my understanding is that some type of land reform is being undertaken right now. People are being given back their property based on deeds and records from before the revolution. It is possible that that they still do not directly own the land, but must lease it from the government.

[jeff]

Ted

What you were told have already been done 30 years ago. Only property, not land.

[Khanbaliq]

Ted, Tibet is part of China, be it Qing Empire, ROC or PRC. CCP or not does not change it. Second, it is the Tibetans in exile, mostly former aristocrats and owners of land, if not serfs, and the lamas who used to live on the rest of the population, plus their Western manipulators that has made it an issue.

I advise you read the Christian Science Monitor Op-Ed piece posted above. The deficit of knowledge might be enlightening for those enlightenable.

[Edward]

Ted,

Some Tibetans disagree with CCP (China Communist Party, there is nothing to do with religion here, Jeff), is no question at all (we disagree with our own government so many times). However, Hawaiian movement does not receive coverage as big as (actually very very small coverage if none at all) from the media because it is against a western country. And the West still like to make sure that this kind of problem only happens in the East and not the West. I just wonder if Gere, etc. want to know that before they try to do that to China, it is best to give a good example by returning Hawaii to its owner, ther Hawaiians? It looks very hypocritical of them to ask from other people but don't want to do the same themselves.

[jeff]

Ted

It is the Lama monks traditionally controlled and loyal to Dalai Lama (now it is the 14th), who made the Tibet issue public. Lama monks from the three major Monastery belong to his sect of Tibet Budhism asked for his return w and protested(including violence) every year. The other three sects of Tibet Budhism don't even care or rather hope Dalai Lama gone forever to gain more influence. If Dalai Lama asks for independence, many will follow his call because of his spiritual role. But majority of Tibetans only care about their daily life. Those who follow Panchan Lama are more loyal to China.

[jeff]

Ed

I agree this has nothing to do with religion. I am very frustrated to let those people understand the Tibet issue. And I am also frustrated that my now home called the US invites Daliar Lama, the theocratic and serf/slave owner, to talk about compassion here. It is like asking Jews to invite Hitler to talk about compassion. It is totally against my believe in this great country.

[Eve]

"So is Hawaii today what Tibet will be like in 30 years? Overrun with mainlanders who find the nativists amusing and quaint, scoffing at claims of sovereignty?"

All I can say is --I hope not. Those with more power shouldn't always win the day. As humans we need to respect different cultures and let people determine their own government and future. The stories of Native Americans and Hawaiians being overrun should be a cautionary tale, don't let the past determine the future.

[RY]

This poem was published on Wash post.

When we were the Sick Man of Asia, We were called The Yellow Peril.
When we are billed to be the next Superpower, we are called The Threat.
When we closed our doors, you smuggled drugs to open markets.
When we embrace Free Trade, You blame us for taking away your jobs.
When we were falling apart, You marched in your troops and wanted your fair share.
When we tried to put the broken pieces back together again, Free Tibet you screamed, It Was an Invasion! When tried Communism, you hated us for being Communist. When we embrace Capitalism, you hate us for being Capitalist.
When we have a billion people, you said we were destroying the planet.
When we tried limiting our numbers, you said we abused human rights.
When we were poor, you thought we were dogs. When we loan you cash, you blame us for your national debts.
When we build our industries, you call us Polluters.
When we sell you goods, you blame us for global warming. When we buy oil, you call it exploitation and genocide. When you go to war for oil, you call it liberation.
When we were lost in chaos and rampage, you demanded rules of law.
When we uphold law and order against violence, you call it violating human rights.
When we were silent, you said you wanted us to have free speech.
When we are silent no more, you say we are brainwashed-xenophobics.
Why do you hate us so much, we asked. No, you answered, we don't hate you.
We don't hate you either, But, do you understand us? Of course we do, you said, We have AFP, CNN and BBC's... What do you really want from us? Think hard first, then answer... Because you only get so many chances. Enough is Enough, Enough Hypocrisy for This One World.
We want One World, One Dream, and Peace on Earth. This Big Blue Earth is Big Enough for all of Us.

[Li Xuechen]

Why do the Tibetans hate the Chinese so much? There has got to be a reason but Beijing isn't telling the people. So Chinese people remain ignorant. Chinese government always tell people that Tibetans are backward, feudalistic, and poor people, something to look down upon.

[A B]

Tim,

Thank you very much for clarifying the photo.

[Amban]

As regards Chinese student violence in Seoul, this Youtube video is very difficult to explain away:

http://tinyurl.com/5kayvd

[stevelaudig]

For a somewhat more scholarly approach which lines out the international law differences between Tibet and the Hawaiian Islands see: http://www2.hawaii.edu/~hslp/journal.html

Disclaimer, I've the honor of being the editor

[jeff]

Li Xuechen

Tibetans don't hate Han, Hui or any ethnic groups of Chinese. It is the Lamas from Dalai Lama's sect want to get back their power and influenc. Every Chinese know the issue. Tibetans are not backward. They are the only deep religious people left on earth. They are highly respected in China. By the way, you must be a FLG member. Have your meditation opened your third eye yet? Does the Fa-wheel in your stomach turn in your favor today?

[Ted]

No the chinese person i spoke to last week and I discussed at length the process their parents are going through to get ownership of land that was taken away from the family.

I visit an artists home in beijing who talked about the current process to return property back to individuals. there is a land reform process occuring that is more recent than 20 years ago.

the issue in hawaii is about land ownership

tibet was elevated as an issue on March 10th due to the actions of tibetan people in tibet.

no it was not the "west"

[Ted]

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=dalai+lama

read all of these books first and conduct an analysis to see that there is very little mention of china or politics.

[Ted]

It is not about loyalty to the panchan lama selected by the CCP.

Han racism against minority peoples is the reality.

[buffy]

The difference between Hawai and Tibet is Hawaiian enjoy the same freedom as any US citizen, are not treated as second-class citizens, and can follow any religion they choose. US didn't invade Hawaii, destroy temples, kill monks, and commit a lot of atrocities that China did when they invaded Tibet more than 50 years ago. I think the reason why the Dalai Lama just asks for greater autonomy for TAR instead of asking for independence for Tibet is because he knows that it's impossible. If Tibet, when it was an independent country with a small army of about 5000 people, could not defend itself when China invaded it in 1950, how can its exile government with no army can ask for independence now? Therefore the Dalai Lama just asks for greater autonomy.

China blamed Western media for "bias" coverage. I think Western's reaction of China's crackdown on Tibet's protest is the natural reaction of a person with a conscience, who cannot stand still to see a small kid beaten up by a big bully.

I am glad that there are honest reporters like Tim Johnson who are brave to report what they see, present their views as well as others openly, inspite of all the death threats from extreme people whose patriotism are manipulated and taken advantage of by the Chinese government.

Tim J, I really like to read your blogs and your reply to other people's comment.

I think the movie "Seven Years in Tibet" is a good story about Tibet from a foreigner's perspective.

[Jarrod]

buffy: "China blamed Western media for "bias" coverage. I think Western's reaction of China's crackdown on Tibet's protest is the natural reaction of a person with a conscience, who cannot stand still to see a small kid beaten up by a big bully"

I wholeheartedly support more human rights/freedom of speech for all Chinese, not just Tibetans. But your view of the March 14 riot is quite inaccurate and in line with widespread media bias, which was the heart of Chinese people's grievance. It's very interesting how people keep on using the word "crackdown" for China's handling of the situation and "protest" to refer to the murderous rampage. Buffy, you think this way because you've already had it made up in your mind as to who's at fault in such a situation even before it happened. Otherwise how do you explain your blatant regard of the facts?

China has provided video footage, pictures, and identities of the civilians that were killed by Tibetans rioters. What has the exile Tibetan community done to back up its figure of dead Tibetans other than successfully publicizing their claim through the western media? Here's what holy Dalai Lama had to say when asked by Anne Curry about his insistence that hundreds of Tibetans were killed:

"Uh-huh (AFFIRM). Oh, I-- I mean, you see, the-- I-- I think, maybe when Chinese say, I can only, autonomous region of Tibet, maybe. I don't know. I don't know. But it seems, you see, they-- outside the the autonomous region of Tibet, this area very remote. And many don't, deh, what's it called, what's say, normantic (PH), very remote area. So, I really very much worry, as-- what's-- what is happening in this area?"

I know he doesn't speak English very well, but what kind of a response is that? If you want to say that China closed Tibet so we can't verify the figure, that's fine. But don't go around blasting around big numbers and then not produce any useful comments when asked about it.

Just because US did not kill millions when they occupied islands that were not theirs (no historical claim to Hawaii whatsoever) does not give you reason to dismiss their call for autonomy.

[A B]

Eve,

"Those with more power shouldn't always win the day. As humans we need to respect different cultures and let people determine their own government and future."

Go read the "constitution" of the "Tibetan Government in Exile" and you will find that what they want to do is to:

- throw out all the non-Tibetan peoples in the territory they claim.

- establish a religious state where the DaiLai Lama is the head of state and Dharma is the principle governing the state and the highest law.

- presumably Tibetans who are not Buddhists, and not Buddhists of the faction that the Dai Lai Lama favors, is also on the outs.

I don't think we can look to the "Central Tibetan Administration" to do any better than Chinese rule, and probably a lot worst.

In most of the areas the "Government in Exile" claims, the Dai Lai Lama faction is a minority, not a majority. (This fact is subject to verification.)

Alternatively, take a look at this posting where some of their demands have been aired:

http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2008/04/the-wishes-of-a-tibetan/

"Creation of an official Tibetan language".....

In other words, suppress the other languages so the Lhasa dialect can dominate.

"Recognition of degrees granted by Monasteries"

In Pakistan, they call these kind of schools Madrasas. The fact is, while Religions can offer degrees, except for the degree in Religious Studies or like subjects, no degree granted by a religious organization worldwide is recognized as a credential in a field like, e.g., Astronomy unless that program is accredited like any other secular institution's programs.

This demand is remarkable for the gall and lack of awareness of what the ramifications of such a concession would be to not only China, but the world.

Picture if a Muslim student trained at a Madrasas demanded a U.S. government job that required a n undergraduate degree.

If you look very carefully at the list of demands, most of them are implicitly or explicitly intended to create a Tibetan nation: common language, centralize power in monasteries, etc. in preparation for secession.

China have to be out of their mind to grant them these concessions.

China has a lawful duty to protect the right of all Chinese citizens, including the Muslims, the Han Chinese, many of whom are Buddhists, and Tibetan Buddhists who are not from the Dai Lai Lama's faction.

Beijing now clearly see how Tibetans and their allies are willing to exploit China during a vulnerable moment.

China need to gradually phase out crude oppression, but it needs to be replaced by the more subtle, but far more effective means Western governments have used to solve these problems.

[nanheyangrouchuan]

"The point being made is that the PRC is doing to Tibet what Americans did to Hawaii."

And China's consistent pattern is "two wrongs make a right".
Bad China.

And the nativist movement does have teeth and is heard in DC, discussions mentioned by NPR include making all but the big island "native only" (one island is "native only" currently) or a referendum on Puerto Rico status.

And to say that foreign powers are not involved is naive, Russia and China would love to have a strategic toehold on Hawaii, during a USN/PLAN BBQ in 2007, a mid-level PLAN officer approached a mid level USN officer and proposed splitting the Pacific at Hawaii. No doubt the PLAN would love to have its own little outpost there in the spirit of "mutual cooperation".

Of course their presence would turn that part of Hawaii into a land fill because China ruins whatever it touches.

[Pffefer]

Buffy,

You sound like a typical ignorant, self-righteous and assertive westerner.

Yes terrible things such as destroying temples etc. happened in Tibet, but they happened in the rest of China too. Tibet was not specificially targeted. Tibetans are being treated as second-class citizens? Other than the pieace that Tim Johnson posted below quoting a TGIE official (as credible as Xinhua, I suppose) claiming so, I am not aware of any hard evidence indicating the Tibetans are being treated as second-class citizens. Unfortunately, nowadays money is god in China, if you are rich and you have connections you are first-class citizens; if you are poor you are second-class citizens, no matter what your ethnic background is. Most of the poorest Chinese are Han, I'd argue they are at the bottom of the Chinese society, sadly.

[Pffefer]

nh, has China ruined you, since you live there and refuse to leave, you sicko?

Chinese outpost near Hawaii? The US has two major military bases close to China's home turf, housing thousands of menacing GI's (both to the Chinese and the local Japanese and Koreans). The US sends its aircraft carrier battle groups to the Taiwan Straight at will as a show of force. Whatever the Chinese are trying to do, their effort/presence is dwarfed by the ever-lasting presence of the global hegemon.

nh, show some courage by burning down some Chinese government buildings. :-)

Tim, once again, what's nh's IP? I want to report a potential terrorist.

[John2, Bouvet Island]

I am interested in this comment, can you please send the exact link to the discussion comparing Tibet with Hawaii? The link cited is just to the website with two issues of a journal.

"For a somewhat more scholarly approach which lines out the international law differences between Tibet and the Hawaiian Islands see: http://www2.hawaii.edu/~hslp/journal.html

Disclaimer, I've the honor of being the editor

Posted by: stevelaudig | May 01, 2008 at 02:51 PM"

I think PRC differs from HI in one respect: PRC is communist, US colonialist. National liberation struggles according to Marx and Lenin are ok against colonialists, not ok against communists.

The particular national minority treatment of Tibet has similarities with HI about land and language. Both are seen as strategic military assets preventing high degree of local military autonomy. But I would like to learn the other important points of difference and similarity in history, law, and politics.

[A B]

Of course, China could seed the Taiwan strait with mines as part of an exercise just before a US fleet is to sail into it.

They would have to declare a Maritime Exclusion Zone (since they are still technically at war with the ROC)

By doing so, they would force the ships to risk being mined.

Unless some Captain want to risk their ship, it probably wouldn't happen.

The question is, how far can China declare a Maritime Exclusion Zone? To the midpoint of the Taiwan strait? To the 12 mile limit of the island of Taiwan? To the entirety of Taiwan since it is a part of China? Or even beyond the island of Taiwan to the 12 mile limit?

Before we launch a 1,000 lawyers to argue this case, be reminded that this would be regarded as a hostile and destabilizing act against the US.

China shouldn't do that.

[Tim J]

Pffefer, let me just say that NH is in the western U.S., according to his IP. He (or she) is not in China.

[Pffefer]

Thanks Tim, and I want to applaud nh for leaving China. Finally he did it!

[A B]

Many people in China use Virtual Private Networks or Proxy Servers or other means to bypass filtering.

So the IP address alone do not tell you where the person is from.

Furthermore, many users are assigned a dynamic IP rather than a static one.

You need the records of that IP and all the other proxies in the middle to see if it actually connected to the same subscriber each time, and who the subscriber is.

Police do this all the time.

Quite frankly, Pffefer and Tim, unless it relates to a credible threat to you, you are wasting your time.

Ignore is even easier than delete.

[Li Xuechen]

I am a Chinese, and I wish Chinese people and Chinese government treat the world respected Dalai Lama with some dignity. Why would 50,000 people go of their own will and pay a high ticket to listen him talk in Seattle? I am sure this is not a Western conspiracy. It only makes us a fool, acting like North Korea, Myanmar or Zimbabwe. Surely we can act more civilized! We Chinese must not only listen to what Beijing says, open our eyes, and start caring about things other than money.

[little sister]

Pft, "natives." I was born and spent the early years of my life in Hawaii, but of course to some I am not a real native just because certain people's ancestors got there before mine. I dislike that sort of thinking. Ethnic nationalism and anti-migrant, xenophobic sentiments are abhorrent no matter who (Hawaiian, Tibetan, Chinese, American, whatever) promotes them.

[jeff]

First Chinese student arrested in South Korea with family name called Kim. He is most likely a Korean Chinese from his family name (Hui, and Machurian also have Kim as family name, not Han).

[Junhui]

"The difference between Hawai and Tibet is Hawaiian enjoy the same freedom as any US citizen, are not treated as second-class citizens, and can follow any religion they choose". To the user who posted this. That is not the difference. Tibetans "enjoy" the same freedom of ANY Chinese citizen even if the freedom is not equivalent to that of the United States. In addition, they are free to practice their own religion. The main difference is; The Hawaiian Natives are protesting and seeking independence NOT the Hawaiian natives-in-exile.

To Li Xuechen; I'm not going to question whether or not you're really Chinese. But if the Dalai Lama wanted to be treated with respect; he would act upon things to earn it. Just for being the Dalai Lama; instantly gets 100% of my respect. But over time, this percentage decreases quite fast especially in recent days. He has evades difficult questions such as the one user Jarrod posted and seeks an apartheid-like system if he is successful in accomplishing his goals. Inflicting cultural and linguistic genocide on people NON-Tibetan. Is that the man I want to respect? He's nothing more than a politician in a monk's robe. He makes Siddhartha cry.

And as far as the 50,000 people in Seattle...Do you know how many hippies are up there? You can get 50,000 to go to almost anything. What we Americans love to do most is pour money into something and think we can change the world. It makes us feel better about ourselves. We think we can change the status of Tibet by going to a simple Dalai Lama talk. Of only we knew the truth...

[Michael Turton]

LOL. I think Tibet and Hawaii are good examples of the differing way colonialism played out in the US and Chinese history.

Land theft is land theft, and there will always be those who live to despoil others of their land by imprisoning and killing them. What's happening now in Tibet is an old story.

For me the main difference between Tibet and Hawaii does not lie in the expansionist drives of the respective powers who colonized those lands, but in the way the populace at home viewed the annexation. In the US the annexation of Hawaii was opposed by many, including President Cleveland. Even today in the history books the annexation has been questioned under international law, and in 1993 President Clinton apologized for the US overthrow of the queen. There currently exists a small independence movement, which is perfectly legal and is not opposed by suppression of its rights.

In other words, throughout the expansion of the US there existed a vigorous counterforce composed of many different elements of society who opposed colonialism for economic, political, and moral reasons. Colonial actions by the US typically resulted in books, articles, pamphlets, and in popular discussion. Such opposition was often effective in limiting or ameliorating US territorial aggrandizement.

Both within and without China, no such plurality of opinion appears exist among Chinese. I have discussed the issue with innumerable Chinese, and have yet to meet even a single one who has any moral, political, or economic objections to shooting the Tibetans and plundering their land.

I can't think of anything sadder than this lack of public plurality in the Chinese political sphere, except maybe all the death and oppression that is likely to result from it.

Michael

[Li Xuechen]

To Jeff: I am not going to question whether you are an American or not. Do you mean to say all the 50000 people were hippies? I thought they were well dressed and educated people. Isn't this the city whether people came out in huge numbers to protest against the inequalities of globalization, and the rich countries neglect of developing countries interest. I would say these people are enlightened! In fact it seems the more educated and rich you are, whether it is country or it is individual, the more you support Tibetans.

[Junhui]

Sometimes its easy to overlook facts. And sometimes is also easier to glance over things. But thats beyond the point here right? Jeff didn't post that the 50,000 people were hippies. I did. They could have been hippies who knows. I'm just saying, Seattle is a very liberal town. Where do you get this fact that the more rich you are the more you support the Tibetans?

If you do have evidence of this. Please do tell. If you don't I can give you probable reasons. But I can tell you; that when I was a poor college student; I did not support the Tibetan cause. Now that I'm making an above average living; I still don't support it. But lets just say that you do have evidence. Poor people (aka people with less money), don't really care about Tibet because it doesn't put food on their table. Half will probably be unable to tell you were Tibet is. They can sleep at night knowing that they're not over consuming and have nothing to feel bad about. Rich people will probably support Tibet because they want to make themselves feel better. They like to feel like they are benefiting the world. Honestly some actually want to make a difference, they go to Tibet and talk to the people. Some sit at home, pour money into Dalai Lama campaigns and truly believe that they can save the world by just pumping money. People like to feel comfortable; if you asked them to give up all they have to to insure the Tibetan way of life would they? Probably not.

If you haven't already noticed, supporting Tibet is like a fad of the rich. Much like golf. Some poor people golf but a lot more rich people golf. It's like being in the know. Richard Gere is rich and yes he also supports Tibet "freedom". But he has proven that he lacks cultural understanding...(aka the kiss? remember the kiss!?). He thinks Tibet can become some kind of Utopia. By supporting Tibet, thats how he can sleep at night while keeping all his creature comforts.

I suppose you're pretty rich yourself. I hope you can sleep at night knowing other people don't have what you have. Go donate. PS. Seattle? Globalization? Starbucks? Starbucks is for the rich; I prefer Folgers.

[A B]

"Starbucks is for the rich; I prefer Folgers."

Folgers is too expensive for me.

I buy generic beans.

Even better, decaf that has nothing in the "bean".

Just like many of the posts here.

[Mick]

The political situation of the Hawaiians is comparable to the Maori of New Zealand. Both are Polynesian people colonised by Europeans in the 19th century. The warlike Maori fought the Europeans - I guess these days they would be called insurgents or terrorists or "evildoers". Their armed struggle secured them a written treaty with the British Crown that gave them title over their lands and resources.
Maori people are now the proud owners of their own tribal lands. They have fishing rights to the oceans.
There are still many problems in Maori society but compared to the Australian Indigenous people and the Hawaiians the Maori are very fortunate.
New Zealand's maori are an example for the indigenous people of Australia, Hawaii and Tibet. Bottom line: get your rights in writing and don't be shy of armed struggle to make sure they're enforced.

[buffy]

Li Xuechen, I totally agree with you. I have many Chinese friends, and I love and respect them. I think Chinese are honest, hard-working and patriotic people. It's just sad that the Chinese government has taken advantage of this patriotism and presented the protest as anti-China demonstration.

I don't think the world is anti-China. They protest because they are anti-violence. They are against the burning and killing happened during the riot, they are also against the suppression with police and army, especially when no independent reporters are there to report what really happened.

I have read some article written by Chinese intellectuals (in China)disagreeing with the way the Chinese government handling the riot, and banning foreign reporters, saying that by doing this the Government really hurts China credibility. This article confirms my belief that there are lots of conscientious and courageous people in China. Sadly those people will probably be silenced soon, like Hui Ja, the famous dissident that has been sent to prison.

However, I believe truth will prevail, and truth and compassion will move people. Western people are not stupid people. There is a reason why the Dalai Lama receives the Nobel Peace Price, the Highest Congressional Medal of Honor from US, and named as a honorary citizen by the Paris City Counsel.

I have read books written by Dalai Lama. It really shows that he is an enlightened person who seeks to do good to other people, and does not run after fame, power or money.

[Pffefer]

"Both within and without China, no such plurality of opinion appears exist among Chinese. I have discussed the issue with innumerable Chinese, and have yet to meet even a single one who has any moral, political, or economic objections to shooting the Tibetans and plundering their land. "

Michael, apparently you haven't talked to enough Chinese. There are plenty of them out there, albeit a minority. I doubt that there is anybody out there saying it is right to shoot anybody.

[Wilbur Varela]

One fundamental difference between Hawaii and Tibet is the ability of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement to apply the laws of the US government to keep it claim alive. We should also point out that Queen Liliuokalani was married to the white governor of Maui., and the government in place was composed of both hawaiians and mainlanders.
And most americans, if pressed, will acknowledge that Hawaii was annexed by dubious means, while in contrast, the majority of chinese display the fascist tendencies of nationalism and propaganda, and like most totalitarian societies, they cannot tolerate any dissent.

There is one similarity, however, a universal one, and that is that peace can only be achieved when we respect the needs and culture of others, be it the native Hawaiians, or the Tibetans.

[bemis]

wilbur: YUP: give respect to their culture (leis for tourists, hula dancing...) but KEEP THE LAND! Hope PRC does likewise, since it is obviously the acceptable & "Correct Thing"
to do.

[shenqh]

Hawii is a tiny island. It is not a big deal for usa if becomes independent. If the indians (too bad their number was down from 20 millions by the "liberation" by white people) make strong claims like the exiled Tibetans, Americans will unlikely to be so generous like Chinese to Tibetans, they will start another "liberation". Casino will be the solution to solve tibet prblem.

Tim, thanks for clearifying the photos.

[Edward]

Buffy,

Just FYI, same years ago a Hawaiian journalist spoke on television from Tibet. In essence he said that it was awesome that Tibetans spoke Tibetan. For so many years, Hawaiians were not allowed to speak Hawaiian. Here is the quote from E Ola Ka 'Olelo:

Clip from E Ola Ka ‘Olelo Hawai‘i

produced by ‘Aha Punana Leo
directed by Na Maka o ka ‘Aina

NARRATOR: What had happened to our mother tongue?

Up until the turn of the last century it had been a strong and flourishing language. When missionaries came and the language began to be written down, there developed a vast written literature.

Over a hundred Hawaiian language newspapers were established. They printed both stories of these islands and those of other lands.

Complete school curricula were taught in Hawaiian, in subjects from geography to mathematics.

Hawai‘i in the mid-1800's had one of the highest literacy rates in the world.

What had happened to our mother tongue?

A law was enacted in 1896 by a mostly American group of businessmen who had overthrown our Kingdom three years earlier and set themselves up as the Republic of Hawai‘i.

The law stated: The English language shall be the medium and basis of instruction in all public and private schools.

With that sentence, all Hawaiian language schools were closed and the culture was dealt a severe blow.

JOE MAKA‘I: Lots of foreigners come and say to us "Too bad you folks cannot keep your language." Then we tell them "Because it was forbidden." We were not allowed to speak Hawaiian in school. Only English.

ELIZABETH KAUAHIPAULA: When I was young, we couldn't speak Hawaiian in school. It was forbidden. If you even said one word, you were punished. And if you did it again, you had to open that hand and get whacked.

LARRY KIMURA: We wanted the Hawaiian language to be returned to the home. But how would we start this big idea? By establishing a children's school where they would only hear Hawaiian. And so that's how the Punana Leo began.

NARRATOR: In 1987, the Hawaiian language was once again brought into public schools with the opening of the first immersion classes at the elementary school level. Now there are 23 Punana Leo and immersion schools. And many more communities are planning to open new schools.

KAUANOE KAMANA: It amounts to over a thousand students that are presently being taught in Hawaiian.

LARRY KIMURA: The work is not finished. It's only just begun. It's been eleven years now and it's only just begun.

This is only in one thing, the language. Fortunately, or infortunately, the last Hawaiian queen, Queen Liliuokalani did not allow her subordinates (I believe because she understood that her subject were no match to the Americans) to fight back, thus avoiding bloodshed among the Hawaiians.

She did not leave Hawaii, because she loved her country. Just compare her with Dalai Lama who received backing, including money from CIA.

[Edward]

ShenQH,

It is a very big deal for US about Hawaii land. They will not return it. They need Hawaii for watching over the Pacific ocean. Hawaii has the largest islands in the middle of the Pacific.

And of course, if the us returns Hawaii to its people, the American Indians will ask the same thing, and there will be no more US.

[Edward]

A little history on the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani from the Kingdom of Hawaii complaints files to the United Nations in 2001:

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
2.1 On January 14, 1893, Her Hawaiian Majesty Queen Liliçuokalani summoned into
the throne room of the Palace, the diplomatic corps, members of the Supreme
Court and the Legislative Assembly, as well as a committee of the Hawaiian
Political Association, which comprised of aboriginal Hawaiian subjects
vehemently opposed to the illegal 1887 constitution as evidenced by a multitude
of signature petitions the organization had collected. Her Majesty's intention on
this day was to reaffirm the 1864 Constitution as a counter to the illegal 1887
constitution.
2.2 This action, on the part of the Queen, generated excitement amongst a minority of
the non-aboriginal Hawaiian subjects and alien community, who were coconspirators
in the so-called 1887 constitution that illegally allowed aliens to vote
in the Kingdom elections. This faction would convince the Queen's ministers to
delay her announcement in order to formulate a counter. Thereafter, the Queen
regrettably informed her guests that she yielded under the advice of her ministers,
and promised that on some future day a new constitution would be sought.
2.3 In response to the Queen's delay, a meeting of approximately fifty to one hundred
people, primarily resident aliens, met at a private office in Honolulu and selected
a so-called Committee of Safety, which comprised of thirteen individuals. The
national breakdown of this so-called committee was: (6) Hawaiian subjects, not of
the aboriginal race, (5) American citizens, (1) British subject, and (1) German
subject. Between the 14th and 16th of January, 1893, the committee had been
meeting with the resident United States Minister assigned to the Hawaiian
Kingdom, His Excellency John Stevens, to formulate a plan of annexing the
Hawaiian Islands to the United States.
2.4 On January 16, 1893, a meeting was organized by the so-called Committee of
Safety to protest the Queen's efforts to nullify the illegal constitution of 1887.
Continuing to mask their true intentions, the committee sought to procure a
resolution to be passed by those people in attendance that would denounce the
Queen and empower the committee.
2.5 On that same day the so-called committee, which was comprised of only five (5)
Americans out of thirteen (13), had sent a note to the United States Minister
purporting that American lives and property were in danger and concluded that,
"We are unable to protect ourselves without the aid, and therefore pray for
the protection of the United States forces."
2.6 After delivery of the note, the committee had re-evaluated their treasonous
actions, and sent a small contingent to persuade the American Minister not to land
the troops until the next day. The request was denied. The American Minister, in
violation of the international law of non-intervention, said that the orders have
been issued and whether the Committee of Safety was ready or not, the troops
will land. Captain Wiltse, U.S. Naval Commander of the U.S.S. Boston, was
ordered to land a force,
"...for the protection of the United States legation, United States consulate,
and to secure the safety of American life and property."
2.7 Thereafter, between the hours of 4 and 5 p.m., an invasion force of over 160 wellarmed
U.S. troops, with two (2) pieces of artillery, were landed and marched
through the streets of Honolulu to a position previously selected by Minister
Stevens on January 16, 1893. The location of the detachment was directly across
the Government building and in plain view of the Palace.
2.8 Immediately following the unprovoked landing of the American troops, the
Governor of the island of Oçahu, His Excellency Archibald Cleghorn, sent a
communication to the U.S. Minister protesting the landing of the troops and called
it an unwarranted invasion of Hawaiian soil. At the same time the Hawaiian
Minister of Foreign Affairs, His Excellency Samuel Parker, sent a communication
to the U.S. Minister and demanded an explanation for the landing of American
troops. The U.S. Minister evaded both communications. The American troops
were located a few hundred yards from the Government building at a place
between Music Hall and Arian Hall. Members of the so-called Committee of
Safety predetermined this location and the U.S. Minister before American troops
disembarked the U.S.S. Boston.
2.9 On January 17, 1893, at about 2:30 p.m., members of this treasonous group
proceeded in squads to the Government building, where the American troops were
already situated, in order to read their so-called proclamation abrogating the
monarchical form of government and seeking annexation to the United States. But
in order for these traitors not to be noticed and arrested by Hawaiian officials,
they separated in their march. The Committee of Safety had sent Mr. A.S. Wilcox
to see if there were any Hawaiian Government troops present at the Government
building, and when informed there was none, they proceeded to the Government
building and read the proclamation only a few hundred yards from the fortified
position of American troops. Only at the end of the reading of the proclamation
did the insurrectionary troops, numbering a mere thirty (30) to forty (40), begin to
assemble.
2.10 U.S. Special Investigator James Blount who was investigating the circumstances
of the so-called revolution later requested Rear Admiral Skerrett, ranking officer
of the U.S. Naval Force in the Pacific, to comment on the location of American
troops. Rear Admiral Skerrett stated,
"In my opinion it was unadvisable to locate the troops there, if they were
landed for the protection of the United States citizens, being distantly
removed from the business portion of the town, and generally far away
from the United States legation and consulate-general, as well as being
distant from the houses and residences of United States citizens...Had
Music Hall been seized by the Queen's troops, they would have been
under their fire, had such been their desire. It is for these reasons that I
consider the position occupied as illy selected. Naturally, if they were
landed with a view to support the Provisional Government troops, then
occupying the Government building, it was a wise choice, as they could
enfilade any troops attacking them from the palace grounds in front."
2.11 In his investigation, U.S. Special Investigator James Blount also commented on
the location of the American troops by stating that,
"A part of the Queen's forces, numbering 224, were located at the station
house, about one-third of a mile from the Government building. The
Queen, with a body of 50 troops, was located at the palace, north of the
Government building about 400 yards. A little northeast of the palace and
some 200 yards from it, at the barracks, was another body of 272 troops.
These forces had 14 pieces of artillery, 386 rifles, and 16 revolvers. West
of the Government building and across a narrow street were posted Capt.
Wiltse and his troops, these likewise having artillery and small arms. The
Government building is in a quadrangular-shaped piece of ground
surrounded by streets. The American troops were so posted as to be in
front of any movement of troops, which should approach the Government
building on three sides, the fourth being occupied by themselves. Any
attack on the Government building from the east side would expose the
American troops to the direct fire of the attacking force. Any movement of
troops from the palace toward the Government building in the event of a
conflict between the military forces would have exposed them to the fire
of the Queen's troops. In fact, it would have been impossible for a struggle
between the Queen's forces and the forces of the committee of safety to
have taken place without exposing them to the shots of the Queen's
forces."
2.12 He concluded by stating that,
"A building was chosen where there were no troops stationed, where there
was no struggle to be made to obtain access, with an American force
immediately contiguous with the mass of the population impressed with its
unfriendly attitude. Aye, more than this -- before any demand for
surrender had even been made on the Queen or on the commander of any
officer of any of her military forces at any of the points where her troops
were located, the American minister had recognized the Provisional
Government and was ready to give it the support of the United States
troops!"
2.13 Former United States Congressman James Blount conducted the official report of
this Presidential established investigation. Based on this report the Secretary
State, W.Q. Gresham, advised the President that:
"A careful consideration of the facts will, I think, convince you that the
treaty which was withdrawn from the Senate for further consideration
should not be resubmitted for its action thereon. Should not the great
wrong done to a feeble but independent State by an abuse of the authority
of the United States be undone by restoring the legitimate government?
Anything short of that will not, I respectfully submit, satisfy the demands
of justice. Can the United States consistently insist that other nations shall
respect the independence of Hawaiçi while not respecting it themselves?
Our Government was the first to recognize the independence of the Islands
and it should be the last to acquire sovereignty over them by force and
fraud."
2.14 In a dispatch to United States Minister Albert Willis, assigned to the Hawaiian
Islands, and successor to Minister Stevens, Secretary of State, Gresham, states
that:
"On your arrival at Honolulu you will take advantage of an early
opportunity to inform the Queen of this determination, making known to
her the President's sincere regret that the reprehensible conduct of the
American minister and the unauthorized presence on land of a military
force of the United States obliged her to surrender her sovereignty, for the
time being, and rely on the justice of this Government to undo the flagrant
wrong. You will, however, at the same time inform the Queen that, when
reinstated, the President expects that she will pursue a magnanimous
course of granting full amnesty to all who participated in the movement
against her, including persons who are, or have been, officially or
otherwise, connected with the Provisional Government, depriving them of
no right or privilege which they enjoyed before the so-called revolution.
All obligations created by the Provisional Government in due course of
administration should be assumed."
2.15 Her Majesty Queen Liliçuokalani, faced with a very serious decision of granting
amnesty to the traitors, requested additional clarity and reasoning from the
President of the United States. This inquiry made by Her Majesty was conveyed
by Minister Willis to Secretary of State Gresham. On December 3, 1893, Her
Majesty's inquiry received the following response:
"Should the Queen refuse assent to the written conditions, you will at once
inform her that the President will cease interposition in her behalf, and that
while he deems it his duty to endeavor to restore to the sovereign the
constitutional government of the islands, his further efforts in that
direction will depend upon the Queen's unqualified agreement that all
obligations created by the Provisional Government in a proper course of
administration shall be assumed and upon such pledges by her as will
prevent the adoption of any measures of proscription or punishment for
what has been done in the past by those setting up or supporting the
Provisional Government. The President feels that by our original
interference and what followed we have incurred responsibilities to the
whole Hawaiian community, and it would not be just to put one party at
the mercy of the other. Should the Queen ask whether if she accedes to
conditions active steps will be taken by the United States to effect her
restoration or to maintain her authority thereafter, you will say that the
President can not use force without the authority of Congress. Should the
Queen accept conditions and the Provisional Government refuse to
surrender, you will be governed by previous instructions. If the
Provisional Government asks whether the United States will hold the
Queen to fulfillment of stipulated conditions, you will say, the President,
acting under dictates of honor and duty as he has done in endeavoring to
effect restoration, will do all in his constitutional power to cause
observance of the conditions he has imposed."
2.16 On December 18, 1893, in an interview with U.S. Minister Willis at the legation
of the United States, Her Majesty the Queen consented only to a conditional
amnesty for those individuals involved in the establishment and support of the
Provisional Government. Her conditional consent fell short of President
Cleveland's request. Later that day, Her Majesty, after pondering over the
interview, had determined that in the best interest of the nation she would accede
to President Cleveland's request. That same day, she sent the following letter to
Minister Willis:
"Since I had the interview with you this morning I have given the most
careful and conscientious thought as to my duty, and I now of my own
free will give my conclusions. I must not feel vengeful to any of my
people. If I am restored by the United States I must forget myself and
remember only my dear people and my country. I must forgive and forget
the past, permitting no proscription or punishment of any one, but trusting
that all will hereafter work together in peace and friendship for the good
and for the glory of our beautiful and once happy land. Asking you to bear
to the President and to the Government he represents a message of
gratitude from me and from my people, and promising, with God's grace,
to prove worthy of the confidence and friendship of your people."
2.17 Attached to the letter was the following declaration by Her Majesty and witnessed
by J.O. Carter, in part:
"I, Liliçuokalani, in recognition of the high sense of justice which has
actuated the President of the United States, and desiring to put aside all
feelings of personal hatred or revenge and to do what is best for all the
people of these Islands, both native and foreign born, do hereby and herein
solemnly and pledge myself that, if reinstated as the constitutional
sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands, that I will immediately proclaim and
declare, unconditionally and without reservation, to every person who
directly or indirectly participated in the revolution of January 17, 1893, a
full pardon and amnesty for their offenses, with restoration of all rights,
privileges, and immunities under the constitution and the laws which have
been made in pursuance thereof, and that I will forbid and prevent the
adoption of any measures of proscription or punishment for what has been
done in the past by those setting up or supporting the Provisional
Government."
2.18 Her Majesty's agreement to the conditions of restoration occurred on the same day
President Cleveland addressed the United States Congress on the findings of
James Blount. Her Majesty's agreement was not made a part of his message. On
December 18, 1893, President Grover Cleveland reported fully and accurately on
the basis in part of the Blount report on the illegal acts of the traitors. President
Cleveland described such acts as an
"act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic
representative of the United States and without authority of Congress,"
and acknowledged that, by such acts, the government of a peaceful and friendly
people was overthrown. He further stated that:
"[w]hen our Minister recognized the provisional government the only
basis upon which it rested was the fact that the Committee of Safety had in
the manner above stated declared it to exist. It was neither a government
de facto nor de jure. That it was not in such possession of the Government
property and agencies as entitled it to recognition..."
2.19 In accordance with the principles of international law, the revolutionaries were
not successful in obtaining de facto recognition. Since the revolutionaries failed to
obtain de facto recognition, the legal standing of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the
legitimate sovereign over the Hawaiian Islands, remained intact.
2.20 President Cleveland reminded the United States Congress of the special
conditions of Her Majesty Queen Liliçuokalani's surrender of her executive
authority, where she:
"...surrendered not to the provisional government, but to the United
States. She surrendered not absolutely and permanently, but
temporarily and conditionally until such time as the facts could be
considered by the United States."
President Cleveland further stated that a
"substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national
character as well as the rights of the injured people requires we should
endeavor to repair" and called for the restoration of the Government of the
Hawaiian Kingdom.
He also stated
"...that the United States could not, under the circumstances disclosed,
annex the islands without justly incurring the imputation of acquiring them
by unjustifiable methods, I shall not again submit the treaty of annexation
to the Senate for its consideration," and "...considering the further fact that
in any event the provisional government by its own declared limitation
was only 'to exist until terms of union with the United States of America
have been negotiated and agreed upon,' I hoped that after the assurance to
the members of that government that such union could not be
consummated I might compass a peaceful adjustment of the difficulty."
2.21 Acknowledging the actions taken by the U.S. Minister in January of 1893 as
illegal, both under international and municipal laws, U.S. President Grover
Cleveland called for the restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government on
December 18, 1893. In his message to the U.S. Congress, he rescinded the U.S.
Minister's de facto recognition of January 17, 1893, by stating that the Provisional
Government was neither de facto nor de jure, and admits to intervention by
concluding that
"The lawful Government of Hawaii was overthrown without the drawing
of a sword or the firing of a shot by a process every step of which, it may
safely be asserted, is directly traceable to and dependent for its success
upon the agency of the United States acting through its diplomatic and
naval representatives."
2.22 Attached to the findings of fact, the President expressed
"...desire to aid in the restoration of the status existing before the lawless landing
of the United States forces at Honolulu on the 16th of January last, if such
restoration could be effected upon terms providing for clemency as well as justice
to all parties concerned...In short, they require that the past should be buried, and
that the restored Government should reassume its authority as if its continuity had
not been interrupted."
2.23 What was not known by the President when he delivered the message to the
United States Congress on December 18, 1893, was that Her Hawaiian Majesty
Queen Liliçuokalani had agreed with the proposed condition of amnesty in a
communication with U.S. Minister Albert Willis, successor to U.S. Minister John
Stevens, on the very same day President Cleveland addressed the U.S. Congress.
With all the conditions having been met, the United States failed to assist in the
restoration of the lawful government of the Hawaiian Islands for more political
reasons than that of a legal duty and obligation.
2.24 In view of what has been said regarding the historical background of the fake
revolution and the creation of the puppet government called the provisional
government, the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a subject of international
law remained intact. Thus the problem of the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom
as independent State involves no doctrinal difficulty.
2.25 Although the standing of the puppet “provisional” government has been negated
under international law, the individuals who embarked on this most treacherous
course would not recognize the findings of the U.S. President nor to the lawful
right of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government. Instead, they maintained their
opposition to the law by taking advantage of the time that had elapsed during the
U.S. investigation. In the absence of lawfulness, this self-proclaimed entity that
arose out of illegal actions taken by the U.S. diplomatic and military personnel,
were allowed to grow and recruit individuals seeking power and wealth, while the
United States Congress addressed the Hawaiian issue as requested by U.S.
President Cleveland in his speech on December 18, 1893. Since its illegal birth,
the Provisional Government's intent was never to be an independent nation and a
subject of international law, but rather sought annexation to the United States as a
territory. Under the Cleveland administration the dream of annexation (which was
brokered under the Harrison administration), soon became a nightmare of
American liability and criminal acts, which to this day has not been resolved.
Notwithstanding international law, this traitorous group, who called themselves
the provisional government, maintained itself until a more sympathetic
administration could replace President Cleveland's.
2.26 Unable to succeed at this first attempt of annexation, the self-proclaimed
provisional government declared itself to be the Republic of Hawaiçi on July 4,
1894. This self-proclaimed Republic of Hawaiçi maintained its opposition to the
restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government as called for by United States
President Grover Cleveland. On the day of the Republic's proclamation, its socalled
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Francis M. Hatch, sent a dispatch to U.S.
Minister, Albert S. Willis, who was assigned to the Hawaiian Islands. Mr. Hatch
apprised the U.S. Minister of the re-formation of the provisional government into
the Republic of Hawaiçi and the naming of its President and cabinet. Mr. Hatch
also requested that the U.S. Minister Willis bestow recognition to the selfproclaimed
Republic of Hawaiçi.
2.27 The next day, U.S. Minister Willis responded by acknowledging the receipt of
Hatch's dispatch and concluded that it could not offer any more recognition to the
self-proclaimed Republic of Hawaiçi than the U.S. President gave to the
provisional government. The letter read that in
"...reply to your note reciting the foregoing facts, I have the honor to
inform you that I hereby, as far as I have the right so to do, extend to the
Republic of Hawaiçi the recognition accorded its predecessor, the
Provisional Government of the Hawaiian Islands. I do this in the belief
that I represent the President of the United States, to whom, as the
Executive Chief of the Government, my action in the premises will be
promptly submitted for his necessary approval."
2.28 Since President Cleveland made no subsequent approval of U.S. Minister Willis'
conditional response to Mr. Hatch, the July 5th letter could not be construed to be
diplomatically sanctioned. Furthermore, U.S. Minister Willis, in his letter,
afforded the Republic of Hawaiçi no more recognition than the provisional
government held, which was neither de facto nor de jure.
2.29 On June 16, 1897, a second attempt of a treaty of annexation was signed in
Washington, D.C., between representatives of the self-proclaimed Republic of
Hawaiçi and the newly elected President of the United States of America, William
McKinley. This so-called treaty remained subject to ratification or approval by
two-thirds of the United States Senate.
2.30 On June 18, 1897, in Washington, D.C., the Honorable Joseph Heleluhe, for and
on behalf of Her Majesty Queen Liliçuokalani filed in the U.S State Department, a
formal protest to this second attempt of a treaty of annexation. A certified copy of
the entire protest from the United States National Archives is attached hereto as
Attachment no. 3. In particular, Her Majesty stated:
"Because said treaty ignores, not only all professions of perpetual amity
and good faith made by the United States in former treaties with the
sovereigns representing the Hawaiian people, but all treaties made by
those sovereigns with other and friendly powers, and it is thereby in
violation of international law.
Because, by treating with the parties claiming at this time the right to cede
said territory of Hawaii, the Government of the United States receives
such territory from the hands of those whom its own magistrates (legally
elected by the people of the United States, and in office in 1893)
pronounced fraudulently in power and unconstitutionally ruling Hawaii."
2.31 Fortifying Her Majesty Queen Liliçuokalani's second letter of protest were
petitions, in both the Hawaiian and English versions, from the Presidents of the
Hawaiian organizations of the Men and Women's Hawaiian Patriotic League (also
known as the Hui Aloha 'Aina), and the Hawaiian Political Party (also known as
the Hui Kälaiçäina). A great majority of the Hawaiian people was associated with
these organizations. These petitions were signed on February 4, 1897, and
addressed newly elected United States President William McKinley. The
Honorable Joseph Heleluhe filed these petitions in the United States Department
of State in July of that same year. In order to show solidarity, all three
organizations' Presidents drafted identical petitions, in part:
"Your Petitioner therefore respectfully submits to Your Excellency
(William McKinley),
• That the one hope and trust of the Hawaiian people is the same
today and has been expressed in several petitions heretofore presented to
the Government of the United States, they entertain the firm belief that
Your Excellency will do justice to this Nation during Your term of Office.
• That this trust of the Hawaiian people is strengthened by the
recollection of the friendly action of the Government of the United States
in 1843, when an assurance of the Independence of the Islands was given
by the President to Delegates from Hawaii through which assurance the
recognition of their independence by the Governments of England and
France was readily obtained.
• That no cause whatever can arise that will alter or change the
mind of the Hawaiian people and their desire to see the Monarchy
restored, and the Throne occupied by the Queen, who would never have
been deposed by a handful of foreigners but for the support rendered them
by the U.S. Ship Boston.
• That the Queen and her people are of one mind that in the event
of restoration amnesty should be granted to those who were concerned in
the overthrow of the Monarchy on January 17, 1893.
Your Petitioner therefore prays that the Monarchical form of
Government to which the Nation is attached may be restored to the
Hawaiian Islands and Queen Liliçuokalani reinstated in the Throne, which
for the avoidance of a conflict between her soldiers and a detachment from
the U.S. Ship Boston, which had invaded her realm in support of the
insurgents by order of the U.S. Minister, Her Majesty resigned under
solemn protest and appeal to the President of the United States relying on
the Justice of the President and people of that great country and confident
that a Nation so great and powerful would never allow so great a wrong to
remain unredressed."
2.32 Without adhering to the diplomatic protests from the Queen and these Hawaiian
organizations, President McKinley proceeded to submit the so-called treaty of
annexation to the United States Senate for approval. The Senate was scheduled to
convene in December of 1897. Appraised of President McKinley's intentions, the
three organizations quickly mobilized and instituted two new signature petitions,
which vehemently protested annexation. Of the three signature petitions, it was
decided by the Hawaiian organizations to submit the petition from the Men and
Women's Hawaiian Patriotic League to the United States Senate when it convenes
in December of 1897. It was determined that the signature petition from the
Hawaiian Political Association, (or Hui Kälaiçäina), which numbered nearly
17,000 signatures would be withheld because it might receive a negative response
by the U.S. Senators because of the petition’s pro-Monarchy wording of the
petition. The Men and Women's Hawaiian Patriotic League petitions numbered
over 21, 000 signatures. Here follows the preface to the signatures:
"Whereas, there has been submitted to the Senate of the United States of
America a Treaty for the Annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the said
United States of America, for consideration at its regular session in
December, A.D. 1897; therefore, We, the undersigned, native Hawaiian
citizens and residents of the District of _________, island of _________,
who are members of the (Women's) Hawaiian Patriotic League of the
Hawaiian Islands, and others who are in sympathy with said League,
earnestly protest against the annexation of the said Hawaiian Islands to the
said United States of America in any form or shape."
2.33 As a result of these protests and other legal questions surrounding the selfproclaimed
Republic of Hawaiçi, the United States Senate failed to obtain the
required two-thirds vote, as mandated by the United States Constitution, to ratify
the so-called treaty of annexation. The dominion of the Hawaiian Kingdom
remained intact.
2.34 On April 25, 1898, after the failed annexation of the Hawaiian Islands, the United
States Congress established an Act Declaring that war exists between the United
States of America and the Kingdom of Spain. The Declaration of War was
retroactive to April 21, 1898. The International Laws of War were activated
between the two countries.
2.35 On May 1, 1898, the United States' Navy's Asiatic Squadron under Commodore
Dewey defeated the Spanish Pacific Squadron at the Battle of Manila bay in the
Philippines. The Philippine Islands were a territorial colony of Spain, together
with Guam. The International Laws of War regulated the U.S. Navy’s hostile
incursion into the territory of the Kingdom of Spain, and consequently the
warring parties were termed "belligerent States." The Hawaiian Kingdom and its
territorial dominion was a neutral State, whose territory was considered under
international law inviolable by any belligerent State.
2.36 On May 10, 1898, hearings were held in the U.S. House Committee on Foreign
Affairs concerning Democratic Representative Francis Griffith Newlands’
resolution to provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States of
America. In testimony given before this committee, United States Naval Captain
Alfred T. Mahan and U.S. Army General John Schofield explained the military
importance as to why the resolution should be submitted to a vote by the U.S.
Congress.
2.37 Captain Alfred T. Mahan stated:
“It is obvious that if we do not hold the islands ourselves we can not
expect the neutrals in the war to prevent the other belligerent from
occupying them; nor can the inhabitants themselves prevent such
occupation. The commercial value is not great enough to provoke neutral
interposition. In short, in war we should need a larger Navy to defend the
Pacific coast, because we should have not only to defend our coast, but
also to prevent, by naval force, an enemy from occupying the islands;
whereas, if we pre-occupied them, fortifications could preserve them to us.
In my opinion it is not practicable for any trans-Pacific country to invade
our Pacific coast without occupying Hawaii as a base.” (emphasis added)
2.38 General John Schofield added:
“We got a preemption title to those islands through the volunteer action of
our American missionaries who went there and civilized and Christianized
those people and established a Government that has no parallel in the
history of the world, considering its age, and we made a preemption which
nobody in the world thinks of disputing, provided we perfect our title. If
we do not perfect it in due time, we have lost those islands. Anybody else
can come in and undertake to take them. So it seems to me the time is
now ripe when this Government should do that which has been in
contemplation from the beginning…” (emphasis added)
2.39 On July 6, 1898, during the height of armed conflicts with the Kingdom of Spain,
in both the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean, the United States Congress passed
the joint resolution purporting to annex the Hawaiian Islands. President McKinley
then signed this resolution on the following day. U.S. Representative Ball
characterized the effort to annex Hawaiçi by joint resolution as:
"...a deliberate attempt to do unlawfully that which can not be lawfully
done."
2.40 United States constitutional scholar, Westel Willoughby, wrote:
"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."
2.41 Thus, the purported sovereignty of the self-proclaimed Republic of Hawaiçi, and
not the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom were transferred to the United
States of America. On a platform at the base of çIolani Palace in Honolulu, Harold
Sewall, from the McKinley administration and successor to United States
Minister Willis of the Cleveland administration, stated
"Mr. President, I present you a certified copy of a joint resolution of the
Congress of the United States, approved by the President on July 7th,
1898, entitled 'Joint Resolution to provide for annexing the Hawaiian
Islands to the United States." This joint resolution accepts, ratifies and
confirms, on the part of the United States, the cession formally consented
to and approved by the Republic of Hawaiçi."
2.42 Sanford B. Dole, the so-called President of the self-proclaimed Republic of
Hawaiçi, addressing Harold M. Sewall's Congressional joint resolution, attempted
to maintain the facade of a bi-lateral treaty of cession by replying
"A treaty of political union having been made, and the cession formally
consented to and approved by the Republic of Hawaii, having been
accepted by the United States of America, I now, in the interest of the
Hawaiian body politic, and with full confidence in the honor, justice and
friendship of the American people, yield up to you as the representative of
the Government of the United States, the sovereignty and public property
of the Hawaiian Islands."
2.43 Even though the self-proclaimed Republic of Hawaiçi was absorbed into the
United States of America, and the United States' presence in the Hawaiian Islands
increased as a consequence of occupation, this did not terminate the continuity of
the Hawaiian Kingdom as a member of the Community of States. These events
did constitute a violation of the treaties entered into between the Hawaiian
Kingdom and the United States of America and constituted a violation of
international law. Her Majesty's protest, having been filed in the United States
Department of State on June 18, 1897, was actual notice of international
violations.
2.44 On August 13, 1898, the Klondike steamer entered Honolulu Harbor with
American troops of the 1st New York Volunteer Infantry and U.S. Volunteer
Engineers on board. They were stationed at the first U.S. military post to be
established in the Hawaiian Islands called Camp McKinley, which was located
below Diamond Head in Waikiki on the Island of Oçahu.
2.45 This unprovoked incursion by a belligerent State into the territory of a neutral
State was a violation of the Laws of War, as well as a breach of the treaties and
conventions entered into between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States
and the obligations thereunder. The specific engagement of peace and amity
between the countries is stated in Article I of the 1849 Hawaiian-American Treaty
which provides
"There shall be perpetual peace and amity between the United States and
the King of the Hawaiian Islands, his heirs and his successors."
2.46 Also violated were the obligations agreed to between the two States in regard to
American citizenry residing in the Hawaiian Kingdom and the subjugation of that
citizenry to Hawaiian laws and statutes and to no other. Article VIII of the said
1849 Treaty provides, in part
"...and each of the two contracting parties engage that the citizens or
subjects of the other residing in their respective States shall enjoy their
property and personal security, in as full and ample manner of their own
citizens or subjects, of the subjects or citizens of the most favored nation,
but subject always to the laws and statutes of the two countries
respectively."
2.47 Under the international laws of occupation, more particularly Article 43 of the
1907 Hague Convention IV, the occupying government must establish a system of
direct administration of the laws of the country that it's occupying. In other words,
the United States government, as an illegally occupying government in the
Hawaiian Islands since its unprovoked incursion by its troops on August 13, 1898,
was mandated to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law over the territory and not its
own, until they withdraw. This is not a mere descriptive assumption by the
occupying government, but rather it is the law of occupation.
2.48 Instead of establishing a system to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law in 1898,
the United States, by its Congress in 1900, created a puppet government. This
government, called the Territorial Government of the Hawaiian Islands, would
enforce American law throughout the Hawaiian Kingdom. United States
President William McKinley appointed the most heinous criminal in the
Kingdom, Sanford B. Dole its first governor. Sanford B. Dole, a traitor to the
Kingdom, was given authority by a United States President to punish and even put
to death any Hawaiian subject or loyalist to the Kingdom who would threaten his
so-called authority. United States military bases sprang up throughout the islands
and together with the Territorial Government they imposed their rule over
Hawaiian nationals. Having lost control over its ports of entry, American citizens
unknowingly flocked to the Hawaiian Islands under the false impression that it
was lawfully annexed, and soon overwhelmed the population of Hawaiian
nationals.
2.49 In 1945, the United Nations was created with the United States as one of its
charter members. According to its Charter, the United Nations would promote the
protection of human rights and establish a process of de-colonization for those
people who have not yet attained independence as a nation. United Nations
General Assembly Resolution 1514 provides that
"...all peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right
they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their
economic, social and cultural development."
2.50 In accordance with Article 73 (e) of the United Nations Charter, member States
who had colonial possessions were required to report yearly to the Secretary
General the status of their colonies in relation to self-determination. It was at this
point that the United States committed fraud before this international organization
by fraudulently reporting the Hawaiian Islands as a U.S. colony along with
Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, Panama Canal Zone, Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands. The underlying problem here was that the Hawaiian Kingdom had
already achieved independence for the Hawaiian Islands since 1842, and the
United States and other members of the Community of States also recognized this
independence. Independence though, could not be claimed for the territories of
Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, Panama Canal Zone, Puerto Rico nor the Virgin
Islands.
2.51 This attempt to mask the American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom is what
forged the creation of the Puppet State of Hawai'i in 1959. In 1959, the American
Ambassador to the United Nations reported to the Secretary General that
"...since 1946, the United States has transmitted annually to the Secretary
General information on the Territory of Hawai'i pursuant to Article 73 (e)
of the Charter. However, on August 21, 1959 Hawai'i became one of the
United States under a new constitution taking effect on that date. In the
light of this change in the constitutional position and status of Hawai'i, the
United States Government considers it no longer necessary or appropriate
to continue to transmit information on Hawai'i under Article 73 (e)."
2.52 In regard to the continuity of Statehood during occupation Professor Marek,
author of Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law, (1968)
states,
"Since the law relating to the continuity of the occupied State is clear and
unequivocal, any acts of the occupying power which are not in accordance
therewith are clear violations of international law," and "...a disguised
annexation aimed at destroying the independence of the occupied State,
represents a clear violation of the rule preserving the continuity of the
occupied State."

[shenqh]

CCP was too naive, they should have done the accusation by Dalai (culture genocide in Tibet) in last 50 years. It is still not so late. As we know, Han Chinese are noterious for gamling. Macau has surpassed the sin city Las V. in gamling revenue. If all casinos in Macau are moved to Tibet, it will bring millions of Han Chinese to Tibet. This massive Han population will wipe out Tibet culture.

[A B]

"I am a Chinese, and I wish Chinese people and Chinese government treat the world respected Dalai Lama with some dignity. "

It is called being beaten by a superior propaganda machine.

Beijing need to play their cards a lot better, Li.

[Search4T]

@Edward:

Would you kindly do everyone here a favor by posting the link to the article instead of pasting the entire text here. My finger is getting blistered from all the scrolling with the mouse wheel to get to the end of your article. And Sorry I didn't even intend to read it. ;-)

[jerry]

Tim,

Thanks for the interesting perspective!

Wow, fascinating.

Hawaii nativists need a "compassionate" and "non-violence" advocating figurehead or "spiritual leader" like HH Dalai Lama.

Maybe they claim HH is actually Hawaiian, or better, Hawaiian is an ancient group of Tibetans who were forced in to the ocean due to the persecution of the tyrannic ancient Chinese empeor Chin the First Emperor, like the Japanese. Maybe they'll get the sympathy from the Tibetaniks like Richard Gere and the ild in the Hollywood.

[jerry]

"Why do the Tibetans hate the Chinese so much? There has got to be a reason but Beijing isn't telling the people. So Chinese people remain ignorant. Chinese government always tell people that Tibetans are backward, feudalistic, and poor people, something to look down upon."

Well, why don't you try to read and learn by yourself?

Here is a good start: a Tibetan culture portal/blogsite in Chinese created by a "Chinese-educated" Tibetan college professor in Gansu Province, China. You'll learn a lot more what Tibetans inside China are really thinking. I have been doing so for several days now. It's happening. I am glad that I could still read Chinese, though I don't know how to write Chinese very well any more (not to mention to type in Chinese). Most Tibetans there can definitely write better Chinese than I do -- from there I learned that there are actually several Tibetan dialects, and people in different parts of Tibet may not understand each other (just like in many parts of the China proper, if not for the common written script and now the common Chinese mandarin).

URL:
http://tibetcul.com/

I think we Han Chinese could learn a lot about Tibet and the Tibetan culture than the extreme viewpoints expressed both by the Chinese government AND those of the Tibetan government-in-exile and of the Western media.

[jerry]

Wibur who sated "while in contrast, the majority of chinese display the fascist tendencies of nationalism and propaganda, and like most totalitarian societies, they cannot tolerate any dissent."

It is exactly such altitude from a Westerner that ticked off an "ordinary" Chinese (now a Chinese American) who otherwise would have stayed silent: yes, right, the Westerners are so enlightened, and you doubted your method of "annexing" Hawaii, but the Chinese were all fascists. Well, if the Chinese Manchu Qing emperor in China were employing the same method to Tibet when the white European colonists were doing to the Native Americans in US, we would not have talked about the Tibetan issue, or whether Tibet was "invaded" by China in 1951 (or 1959) depending on which Western article you read, or if it were not the instigation of the CIA in 1950, Dalai Lama might still stay in Tibet enjoying being the true "spiritual leader" of Tibet.

Tibet and China proper have had thousands of years of interactions, with many ethnic groups (Han, Tibetan, and many other ethnic groups you have never heard about) co-existed and inter-mixed in some "boundary" regions.

Just to open your narrow-mindedness, China does not only belongs to the Han Chinese, the large majority, and it does not only refer to the traditional region where Han Chinese dominates. That is why most Chinese (including non-Han Chinese) believe Tibet is part of China -- by the way how and where do you define Tibet.

If you read Chinese, you'll find many interesting and lively discussions among Tibetans (of various Tibetan regions in China, some not in "Tibet"), between Tibetans, Han, and other minority ethnic groups in the following website:
http://tibetcul.com/

(Talking about the Chinese government control of "freedom of speech", I see many "sensitive topics" were freely discussed; even the name of HH Dalai Lama were mentioned).

For instance, in the post relating to the "wishes of Tibetans" posted by a Tibetan, which AB alluded to earlier here, another non-Tibetan ethnic minority complained that despite the fact that Tibetans are also enjoying some "special" treatment and many aids provided by the Chinese government, Tibetans now could try to demand the government to shower the Tibetans with more money and special attention, because they had a "big shot" outside China that makes a lot of noises in the West, the money that other minority groups are also sourly needed.

In a nutshell, because of the recent Tibetan incident and the "biased" reporting of the West on the current affairs of China and Chinese treatment of Tibetans, which contradict what I have seen going on in China during my recent trips to China, I have taken this opportunity as a challenge to myself to learn more about the "true voices" of "ordinary" Tibetans, and other Chinese, in China.

While I see many angry Chinese voices against the Western media, I do find many diverse opinions expressed in various websites, in particular, this Tibetan culture website, many of which are defiantly pro-Tibet (and subtly anti-Han Chinese), sometimes some posters would promote pan-Tibet "nationalism" at the expense of other "sub-groups" within the Tibetan peoples -- for example, claiming a few smaller and minor minority groups are in fact part of the Tibetan big family, etc.

In fact from reading posters in these website I learned that Tibetans themselves are quite diverse mixture of different groups of peoples in the long history of human migration, assimilation, conquering/being conquered, subjugation/subjugated, with different languages/dialects, different cultures/traditions of varying degree, e.g., some groups were supposedly split off from the mainstream Tibetans when they conquered the Chinese Tang capital, and still worshiping the old native Tibetan religion, instead of the Tibetan Buddhism of today.

I wonder if Tibet were to be independent, how would Dalai Lama and his followers treat these groups of Tibetans? What if they wanted to be independent of Tibet?

[Crian Padayachee]

I think the fact that only 60 people advocated Hawaiin independance is a telling story and you simply cannot contrast the two situations. Hawaiin culture and American culture have become so inter-mingled that is is almost impossible to tell them apart. Additionally I have a buddy of mine who lives there for the last 7 years who tells me that the Island is decidely American with no repression of freedom or protests like Tibet. Great point Jerry by the way. You all might want to read a book by Mr. Howard Kuff who spent some time in Tibet and came out with the realization that the culture is slowly being eradicated by the oppresive policies of the CCP.

[A B]

@jerry

"I wonder if Tibet were to be independent, how would Dalai Lama and his followers treat these groups of Tibetans? What if they wanted to be independent of Tibet?"

Loud applause for your post.

[A B]

@Crian

"I think the fact that only 60 people advocated Hawaiin independance is a telling story and you simply cannot contrast the two situations. Hawaiin culture and American culture have become so inter-mingled that is is almost impossible to tell them apart."

Would you say the same for the indigenous Native Americans?

Not one of them is advocating independence, they are so co-mingled with Americans, blab, blab, blab....

I would assume you approve of the methods to achieve these outcomes?

[bemis]

WOW! World-shaking, thoughtful contribution by Padayachee: BUDDY SYSTEM. A buddy here, some hearsay there... Enough to run the world; or at least guide us in judging others, right-from-wrong, history of Hawaii & Tibet. "Thanks" PC, for the depth of your "insights", so maybe I shouldn't even ask, but what about the LAND? ("Territory" seems to be the unspoken Western agenda, whether in the Americas, Africa or Asia?" Your wise pronouncements awaited eagerly...

[Sonagi]

I would like to clarify claims made by Chinese netizens regarding the Korean bicyclist confronting Chinese students.

Some Chinese netizens are claiming that the man hit a Chinese student in the head with the bicycle first and then was caught and kicked by the students. Photo evidence on Chinese websites does NOT support this. There are several photos of the Korean man, who was not a "zd fenzi" but was protesting China's forced repatriation of North Korean refugees in violation of the UN agreement it signed, being kicked and held by Chinese students, but there is not a single photo of the man actually hitting anyone with his bicycle. In addition to the photo of the man holding the bicycle over his, there is another from another angle. The bicycle is over his head, not striking anyone. There is another photo showing the bicycle on the ground with the Korean man and the tattooed Chinese student wrestling for it. There is an additional photo, probably the first actual photo of the engagement, which shows a Chinese student with his hand on the handlebar of the bicycle while the Korean man sits on it. It appears that the Chinese man is preventing the bicyclist from moving. A Chinese student is seen peering over some hedges.

A series of photos taken from the top of a nearby building show that the small band of NK human rights demonstrators arrived by bicycle on a bricked bicycle path and held their demonstration across the street from Olympic Park. They in no way disrupted the torch relay. A large crowd of flag-bearing Chinese in the park saw the demonstrators and crossed the road to confront them. The police stood between the two groups. The human rights demonstration then broke up. Based on the photo evidence, it appears that the Korean man on the bicycle was stopped as he was leaving and then soon surrounded by Chinese students.

On the internet is a photo of a Chinese student holding tissues to his bleeding head. It is alleged that he was hit with the bike by the Korean man. The surrounding buildings indicate that the student was in the same vicinity as the clash. However, the student's hair is longer than that of the Chinese man facing the Korean man as he holds the bicycle over his head.

Chinese websites have also alleged that the NK demonstrators falsely accused the Chinese of hurling a stone and a tool at them. They cite as evidence photos of the Korean men, one of whom dressed up as a PLA officer, holding the stone and the tool and claim that the photos were taken before the rally. However, in the photo of the man in the PLA uniform, a long silver microphone is clearly visible, suggesting that the man is talking to reporters. Indeed he is. Korea's national news agency, YTN, has video footage of the man showing the tool and talking to reporters.

The origin of these internet rumors taken as facts by many Chinese is a netizen named Skywing whose gravatar is a bunny morphed into Adolph Hitler. He posted his photoshopped creations on a Chinese portal called Huanqiu, and from there, the images have gone viral throughout the Chinese blogosphere.

FYI, I'm not Korean, so Chinese netizens, no need to waste electrons blathering about the violent Korean anti-WTO demonstrations in Hong Kong or other irrelevant tu quoque arguments.

[Sonagi]

typo correction:

"In addition to the photo of the man holding the bicycle over his, there is another from another angle."

should read:

In addition to the photo of the man holding the bicycle in your link, there is another from another angle.

[jerry]

To Crian Padayachee, I wonder whether you see the irony in your post. On the one hand, you stated that "Hawaiin culture and American culture have become so inter-mingled that is is almost impossible to tell them apart."

On the other hand, you proceeded to state ". You all might want to read a book by Mr. Howard Kuff who spent some time in Tibet and came out with the realization that the culture is slowly being eradicated by the oppresive policies of the CCP."

Based on your latter statement, should I then claim that "the Han Chinese culture and Tibetan culture are "so intermingled and that is is almost impossible to tell them apart."

Incidentally, in Chinese, we make a distinction between Han Chinese and Chinese, and we talk about Han vs. Tibetans vs. other non-Han
ethnic groups/cultures.
Too bad in English Westerners seem to equate Chinese with Han Chinese, and then proceed to condemn Chinese try to eradicate other cultures. Mind you, Han and other minorities (including Tibetans) have had thousands of years of interactions.

[A B]

@jerry

"in Chinese, we make a distinction between Han Chinese and Chinese"

There is also a distinction between the different provinces, the different sub-groups (linguistic, etc.) within each province, different clans, etc.

It is a rather diverse place.

The ethnic Tibetans who speak the Lhasa dialect have no monopoly on the claim that their language and culture is being "suppressed" or "dominated".

The people of China have accepted the official language because it is one country, and in the space of one country, there is plenty of latitude to promote one's own distinct spoken and written language, culture, mannerisms, behavior, etiquette, cuisine, etc.

Try to tell a Cantonese, or Shanghainese, or whatever that their local language is "oppressed" by Beijing.

They like it fine, thanks.

Nothing stops the Tibetans, which are NOT a homogeneous group, but a hugely diverse group of dialects, cultures, sects of Buddhists, Muslims, Christians (YES THEY EXIST!), and animists from practicing their religion and speaking their language and promoting their culture --- as long as it is not imposed on someone else by force --- within the framework of being a part of China.

Tragically, what many observers do not realize is that much of the demands of the Lhasa Lama expatriate faction is to impose their own sect of Buddhism, their dialect, etc. on the other populations that live in Western China.

How about asking the opinion of some of these other groups, who do not necessarily have vocal supporters abroad, what they think of having their language, culture, religion, wiped out?

If Beijing did a better job of making this case, the Dai Lai Lama sect of expatriates and their "government in exile" would be relegated to the same status as Sikhs seeking Khalistan.

[Rory]

Hawaiin sovereignty ended when the Hawaiian citizens voted to become Americans.
The arguement is ludicris.

[YRUSoEntitled]

These Hawaiian protesters simply want to cash in. And any idyllic notion that Hawaiians would have been left alone without U.S. is folly, too. Japan would have taken over Hawaii and nary a Hawaiian would have been left. Aloha.

[Edward]

First, sorry for the whole quote, I should just refer to the link.

Hawaiians can't cash in like the Tibetans, YRU. The exiled Tibetans can cash in from CIA, Gere, etc.

We want our lands back. We want to enjoy our beautiful land with our children and grandchildren. Currently, we cannot access a lot of our beautiful land because they are occupied by the military.
See more info at Hawaiian Kingdom website.

[Edward]

Mistyped, the correct address:
Hawaiian Kingdom website.