al.; Sai). One of the reasons for the lack of political success for any of the groups that support Hawaiian sovereignty is that there is no cohesive, united, group. Much as Russia in 1916 had over 100 parties, until Lenin and the Bolshevik/Menshevik groups coalesced, there was not enough entropy to bring about change. In the 21st century, and with the history of Hawaii, this is even more difficult. A broad overview of these groups would include:

Basic View

Platform

Misc.

Kingdom of Hawaii Exile

Royalist

1893-85, now defunct

Used as historical tradition for restoring the monarchy

Home Rule Party of Hawaii

Royalist

Extreme nationalism, popular early 1900s

Largely used as an historical basis for rule

Democratic Party of Hawaii

Royalist

Moderate version of Home Rule Party

Using land to secure benefit for natives

Aboriginal Lands of Hawaiian Ancestry (ALOHA)

Nationalist

Reparations for native peoples

Unclear if still in existence

Office of Hawaiian Affairs

Democratic/Nationalist

Legally represent interests of native Hawaiians; most well-funded organization

Respected group trying to redress past issues

Ka Lahui

Grassroots Nationalist

Lobbying United Nations to force decolonization

Trying to work through the system using the contemporary Native American model

Nation of Hawaii

Republicanism

Est. 1993, activism for native peoples.

Some of its leaders have been jailed.

Ka Pakaukau

Non-Violence

Wants U.S. To pay reparations and clean up polluted areas

Return Hawaii to more natural preserve

Poka Laenui

Nationalism

Complete decolonization

Use native democratization

Hawaiian Kingdom

Nationalism

Legally trained, leader Sai believes treaties were broken

Seeks legal means to redress.

Kingdom of Hawaii

Due to some of the efforts of the movment, the United States has apologized for the overthrow of the monarchy and some of the promises it made in An Apology Resolution, November 1993, under President Bill Clinton (LIberty). Despit this public pronouncement, however, in Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs (2009), the Supreme Court ruled that the apology had no binding effect to modify or change the lands of the State of Hawaii (Hawaii, et.al. v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, et.al.). And, although the debate continues, the economic impact of soverignty without severe reparations paid would likely result in a disaster for all sides, certainly not something the U.S. Congress is willing to address anytime soon.
REFERENCES

Budnick, R. Stolen Kingdom: An American Conspiracy. Honolulu: Aloha Press, 1992.

Coffman, T. The Island Edge of America: A Political History of Hawaii. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2003.

Dougherty, M. To Steal a Kingdom. Oahu: Island Style Press, 2000.

Fein, B. "Hawaii Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand." 15-16 June 2005. Hawaiian Congressional Record. .

Hawaii, et.al. v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, et.al. No. 07-1372. U.S. Supreme. 31 March 2009.

LIberty, J and R. Hubbard. "The Rape of Paradise: The Second Century." March/April 1996. Perceptions Magazine. .

Loomis, I. "The Akaka Bill." July-August 2009. Maui Magazine. .

"Migration and Disease." January 2010. Digitial History. .

Okihiro, G. Island World" A History of Hawaii and the United States. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2009.

Sai v Hillary Rodham Clinton, et.al. No. 1:10-CV-00899. U>S. District Court for the District of Columbia. 7 July 2007.

Sai, D. "Information and Overview." 2010. The Hawaiian Kingdom. .

"U.S. Code 7512.Findings." 5 January 2009. Cornell University Law School. .