Hawaiian Sovereignty.

In response to a News Article found on cnn.com
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/01/hawaii.palace.takeover/index.html

On April 30, 2008 approximately 60 people of Native Hawaiian descent reclaimed the Royal Residence to conduct business. They did so quietly and peacefully, showing respect and dignity as they went about their work. At the end of the day, they left quietly, vowing to return to complete more business.
Why did they do this?
The group, the Hawaiian Kingdom Government, rejects statehood of Hawaii and wish to return to the constitutional monarchy of their past. This and other groups claim that the Hawaiian Kingdom was overthrown illegally by the United States of America.
Sounds silly, doesn't it? Not so fast!
Consider that in 1993 President Clinton issued, with U.S Congressional Approval, an apology to the Hawaiian People and "acknowledges that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the **active participation** of agents and citizens of the **United States** and further acknowledges that the **Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished** to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands, either through the Kingdom of Hawaii or through a plebiscite or referendum."
That sounds like a pretty clear acknowledgment of guilt to me. Not only that, but is also sounds like a great starting point for legal action to reclaim some land on the Hawaiian Islands for a separate Hawaiian Reservation.
I support fully the actions of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government, and hope they continue to use peaceful demonstrations to draw attention to their situation. As the United States goes overseas to bring freedom to those under an unwanted government, why not take a look at similar events at home? Why are the Hawaiian people not given a 'reservation' similar to other ethnic groups that occupied the United States prior to its conquest and development? These seems an unfair practice to me.
Surely some land could be placed aside and called 'Hawaiian Kingdom Reservation' and given similar autonomy as other Native American Societies have. The Royal Palace could have some time or a section of the palace set aside so the Hawaiian Reservation could conduct business in their 'rightful' place of business? I fail to see how this would cause undue burden on a country that "acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished . . . their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands."