If you could find a Goth who could lay a legitimate claim to a kingdom with a territory which is now part of Sweden, yes - but you cannot.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

Not always, not if the people of the colony want to stay subjects of the colonial power. One such example is the people of the Falkland Islands.

However, the will of the people does not always count. If a referendum would have been held in Hong Kong, most people would probably have preferred to stay under UK rule instead of being transferred to the People's Republic of China, but China was allowed to take over anyway.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

True enough, by and large though when the majority of a country wants to leave there comes a point where either:

1] you force them to stay
2] you have to let them go.

America is unusual in that unlike most colonial powers it has retained and actually absorbed it's colonial territory making it part of the nation state. Not many countries have achieved that.

__________________
England has no eternal friends and no eternal enemies, only eternal interests - Palmerston

I see nothing wrong with giving sovereignty to the Hawaiians.

(By the way, I was born and raised in Hawaii all of my life).

In 1892, Queen Liliuokalani was illegally forced to give up control of the Hawaiian islands when a group of armed businessmen and Marines stormed her "palace." She wrote: “Now, to avoid any collision of armed forces and perhaps the loss of life, I do, under protest and impelled by force, yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon the facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representative and reinstate me and the authority which I claim as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands.”

Sovereignty isn't going to be some concrete wall splitting Mililani in half, heh. It will simply recognize Hawaiians as a self-governing entity under the federal government, just like the Eskimos and Native Americans. I see no differences between the history behind the Eskimos, Native Americans and Hawaiians. All three of these groups had their jurisdiction over their own land stripped away from them illegally by the United States government. Why shouldn't Hawaiians get their right to jurisdiction back? It was theres to begin with.

I am not Hawaiian, by the way. I just believe that this nation-in-a-nation proposal would give Hawaiians back what they illegally lost. It's unfair in my opinion to see similar proposals be passed for Eskimos and Native Americans but not for Hawaiians who are under the same conditions.

__________________
"Life is like writing a story without an eraser."

Why? They voted for statehood. At a ratio of 17 to 1 at that, and Hawaii hasn't been a sovereign kingdom since 1893. So 114 years, of a nation that nobody is alive to give a damn about. So I suppose you were also for the so called "Falkland War" even though reclaiming the Islands for Argentina wasn't the main reason for the "war". Even though at the time the Falklands had been under British rule for 148 years without interuption.

Ever been to Hawaii for an extended period of time?