America’s Tibet

Recently, a group of native Hawaiians, called the Hawaiian Kingdon Government, took over the historic Hawaiian monarch’s palace (CNN story) calling for a return to the constitutional monarchy that existed before the United States annexed the islands as a Territory in 1893 (later to become a state in 1959).  The end of the CNN story does a pretty good job of stating what really happened: the white landowners, with help from the U.S. government, bullied the monarchy into submitting itself to America, a story most people don’t learn in grade school (if you’re interested in historic falsities imposed through public education, check this book out: Lies My Teacher Told Me, it’s pretty good).  Anyway, the story got me thinking about how up in arms some Americans get about China’s rule over Tibet.  The premise being that Tibetans do not want to be governed by the Chinese so they should be granted autonomous rule, but if a similar situation happened here in the States, who’s side would you support?

For the sake of the argument let’s omit the human rights violations, etc. in Tibet and just say that the argument for their autonomy rests simply on the fact that a majority of Tibetans want self rule.  Now assuming that a majority of Hawaiians do not want to be a state any longer and want a return to the constitutional monarchy (or any other form of government for that matter), would you support a referendum vote by Hawaiians to determine the issue?  Or would you be Lincolnesque and allow no state to succeed from the Union?  This may not be 1860, but it’s something to think about.