Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think what we forget is the Hawaiian Kingdom lastted 500 years before the overthrow by the unitted states, they lastted almost 3x as long as our country so far.
No, the Kingdom of Hawai'i was established in 1795, and was overthrown in 1893 by a group of residents... not by the US Military... so it was only in existence 98 years, not 500.
Sure, I'm aware of the diff, but I'm not sure the folks calling to "Restore the Monarchy" are, or that it really matters that much, since that isn't going to happen. Either is an obsolete form of government in the modern world, with little benefit to anyone except the royal family.
Take the UK for example. The Queen is the richest woman in the UK, a half-billionaire, yet whose annual expense to taxpayers is something like $50 million, for which she provides what? Celebrity appearances? Iconic images for the tourist industry? Yet she has veto power over all legislation, with no recourse, and she does use it, at least a half dozen times a year or so. So don't cheese off the queen!
The idea that a leader for life is chosen for a nation by God, whether by birth or in combat or by election in an upper House of Government, distorts the natural order of things and our contemporary sense of fair play, that leaders should serve at the pleasure of the people. And the idea that leadership of a nation should pass down in succession to personal heirs, or be selected from a specific family group, is expressly contradicted by democratic principles, and is odious to many. Worldwide, monarchies are in a state of decline, and for good reason. It's a really stupid form of government.
Iʻm not sold on the idea of a monarchy either, but if kānaka maoli choose that form of government, I'd be willing to give it a try. If it proves to be unacceptable, it's not as if folks have forgotten how to overthrow it.
And, if you look at some of "political dynasties" in (e.g. the Kennedys, Bushes, etc.) or "economic dynasties" (e.g. the Rockerfellers, Mellons, etc.) in the United States, there's not really that much difference.
The Hawaiian people were there 500 years before the overthrow. What question? What i find is interesting, is it doesn't matter what issue regarding Hawai'i. If its Gentrification of Hawai'i against what locals want, its progress. If its destroying the aina its possitive economic issues, cost of living going thru the roof its supply and demand. With the overthrow its what you see on this thread. Im sorry but you guys have more ecuses to justify maintaining status quo or not to change.
Iʻm not sold on the idea of a monarchy either, but if kānaka maoli choose that form of government, I'd be willing to give it a try. If it proves to be unacceptable, it's not as if folks have forgotten how to overthrow it.
And, if you look at some of "political dynasties" in (e.g. the Kennedys, Bushes, etc.) or "economic dynasties" (e.g. the Rockerfellers, Mellons, etc.) in the United States, there's not really that much difference.
Exactly what i was going to say in alot of ways, we are more a Corporatocracy, Aristocracy in action then democracy anymore which is just as bad as a monarchy.
I don't get it, people keep bring up that hawaii is better off with america and the kanaka maoli nation would be a third world nation but dang, its not like there isnt ghetto or third world areas in the unitted states.
The Hawaiian people were there 500 years before the overthrow.
You keep forgetting... the islands of Hawai'i had separate rulers/governments until the Hawaiian Chiefs were overthrown by Kamehameha the Great. That's why the monarchy of Kam I only dates back to 1795. Or some folks date the monarchy to 1810, when the last holdout Chief gave in, and Kauaʻi and Niʻihau came under Kam's rule
Hawaiian By Heart, Let's say that you get your wish and a vote will be held next week to determine the future of Hawaii. Who would you allow to vote and who would not be allowed to vote?
Yet another question you did not answer. Oh well, I am not surprised.
Ok, let's try this. You obviously do not like the way Hawaii came to be part of the United States. Would you be happier now if the United States had done things King Kamehameha style and went from island to island murdering people? Maybe the United States should have conquered the Hawaiians in the same way the original inhabitants of Hawaii, the people from the Marquesas were conquered by the Tahitians. Then would you be happy?
Is it possible that if the United States had not annexed Hawaii that some other nation would have? Could Hawaii have gone to Japan or China? Was their anything that could have kept another nation from taking over? In theory it is maybe fun to determine what could have been with an independent Hawaii. I would like to know though if that would have been any kind of remote possibility of happening.
Exactly what i was going to say in alot of ways, we are more a Corporatocracy, Aristocracy in action then democracy anymore which is just as bad as a monarchy.
I don't get it, people keep bring up that hawaii is better off with america and the kanaka maoli nation would be a third world nation but dang, its not like there isn't ghetto or third world areas in the unitted states.
Some folks simply get caught up in the "labels" and neglect to look at the "big picture."
Iʻm not sold on the idea of a monarchy either, but if kānaka maoli choose that form of government, I'd be willing to give it a try. If it proves to be unacceptable, it's not as if folks have forgotten how to overthrow it.
To be clear, I'm not opposed to kanaka maoli establishing a monarchy over kanaka maoli people, on their reserved kanaka maoli lands, if that's what they want. I don't even mind if they settle their election runoffs with war clubs, if they want to get really traditional.
I just don't want anyone to buy into the delusion that a monarchy of any sort will somehow magically displace the US Democracy in Hawai'i, no matter how much huffing and puffing goes on by the advocates and their dozens of followers. It's a naive fantasy. Won't happen.
Is it possible that if the United States had not annexed Hawaii that some other nation would have? Could Hawaii have gone to Japan or China? Was their anything that could have kept another nation from taking over? In theory it is maybe fun to determine what could have been with an independent Hawaii. I would like to know though if that would have been any kind of remote possibility of happening.
Great Britain had possession of Hawaiʻi for a while (i.e. the "Paulet Affair") and some Hawaiians would've preferred that Hawaiʻi had become a British territory, instead of an American one. Itʻs not like the Hawaiian flag wasn't prepared for that "possibility."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
