A group calling itself the Hawaiian Kingdom Government (HKG) contends that the small archipelagic U.S. state ought to be independent and that the native constitutional monarchy, overthrown in the late 19th century, should be reinstated as the one true government there.At first glance, the proposition seems preposterous. Similar movements, albeit with less tumultuous histories, exist in the states of Idaho, Vermont, and California, and everywhere such “revolutionaries” appear they are, by and large, met with a large dose of ridicule and condescension. And rightly so; theirs are typically claims of secession, a principle whose popular acceptance seems to have been buried a century and a half ago with Calhoun (along with the copy of the Constitution and the Bible that were lodged beneath his head in his coffin — a bit ironically).

The ideological foundations of the Hawaiian independence movement are quite different, however. Groups like the HKG argue that the annexation of the Hawaiian “nation” by the United States was unjust and contrary to established international law at the time as well as law since produced on the subject of territorial expansion. To their credit, the history of the end of the Hawaiian monarchy is nothing less than shameful — and the shame is red, white, and blue.

It was the late 1880s, and the power of fruit companies, especially American ones, was nearing its peak. In Latin America and in the Pacific, including the Hawaiian isles, such corporations wielded great political and economic influence in addition to their vast land holdings. The stories of their terrors are well-known and well-documented.

I should note at this juncture that under normal circumstances — that is, in the context of a truly free market — I would not be so at odds with such corporations and their “business” practices. But it is also widely acknowledged that the fruit bosses had considerable logistical aid from governments in carrying out their oppressive regimes that would so often come to subjugate the native populations, to put the vile effects lightly. This kind of interventionist economics and undemocratic politics, so often defended by so-called conservatives as “valiant capitalism” in the discussion of this historical period and its miseries, should, in my opinion, be open to scrutiny and, if judged to be as untenable as I suspect, condemnation.

That being established, it is important to understand in what sort of environment the violent overthrow of Her Majesty Queen Lili’uokalani occurred: It was in an era of imperial aspirations in the U.S. and rampant corporate colonialism in the myriad undeveloped, unindustrialized corners of the globe. The climate seemed right for collaboration by the two main players on the world scene, and the convenient collusion promptly followed. Granted, this is, of course, a terribly simplified view of the events leading up to the 1893 takeover of power by European and American fruit bosses and political agents, but it will have to suffice, for a book could be, and has been, written on the subject.

Thus, with arms taken up, U.S. Marines on the shores, and that less than subtle ethnocentrism that tags along with such escapades, the legitimate Queen was captured, her government disbanded, and the islands put under the control of Sanford Dole, the “banana baron” himself. The interim government was then established until the U.S. Congress could pass a bill of annexation. And thus did Hawaii come to be “ceded” to the Union as a territory, with the Philippines and Guam (products of the Spanish-American War of the same decade) added to our territorial holdings not long afterward.

With our own rich past of treasuring self-determination and independence, it would seem an incoherent position to just discount the validity of the arguments put forth by the HKG. Surely the group’s intentions are much nobler, or at least more respectable, than those of their secessionist peers on the mainland. And surely the issue deserves greater attention, scholarly and political, than it presently receives. But whether independence for Hawaii is practical, if principled, is another matter entirely.