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.
So, IF Hawai'i was to be given back, who would it be given too? Who are the original Hawaiians? Here is another question, IF there was a vote in Hawai'i tomorrow about remaining a state, what do you think the outcome of that vote would be?
I imagine they'll do the test based on eye color
I don't personally think there is any chase that Hawaii would go back to some other time. If it did, I'd imagine that anyone who came from plantation time - i.e. japanese, filipino, portuguese, etc. wouldn't be going anywhere.
Maybe they'd go back to 1959 statehood? But all speculation, of course. I think everyone knows the liklihood of Hawaii going back to original Hawaiians is about the same chance as all Florida going back to the Seminoles.
Who votes? If you can trace your ancesters to Hawaii in the late 1700's when Captain Cook arrived? Or, you can trace your ancesters to the late 1800's during annexation? Or, residents of Hawaii.? Or - 51%+ Hawaiian? 100% Hawaiian?
VERY good question! Although I am sure that some will have a problem with it, let's just say all registered residents of Hawai'i can vote. What do you think the outcome would be?
VERY good question! Although I am sure that some will have a problem with it, let's just say all registered residents of Hawai'i can vote. What do you think the outcome would be?
well by our laws everyone would get a vote, regardless of past wrongs. i think it would be no. for all the grief hawaii has benefited from statehood (or us sphere of influence). too much assimilation has taken place, ala roman empire. we are all romans now. if rome were to fall though all bets...
Here is a breakdown of the electoral precincts: Electoral Precincts. Although there was no breakdown of race from non-native hawaiian/native hawaiian, there are some race assumptions that can be made from those who are familiar with the districts. At the time of the plebiscite, generally speaking, to say that Native Hawaiians did not vote would be wrong, just as it would be to say that all whites voted in favor of statehood.
The 1959 statehood plebiscite was attached to the general election, and very very few people knew of the international legal options for independence that was afforded Hawaii at the time. Those that knew were people like Frank E. Midkiff Statehood Countdown #10 (Midkiff) | Imi Pono Projects and the ILWU leadership Statehood Countdown #16 (1955 ILWU Biennial) | Imi Pono Projects. There was no public education in the papers or in schools, about the options for independence that was clearly outlined in the UN process for decolonization. This lack of transparency was a fraud, and not in accord with international law at the time UNGAR 742 Statehood Hawaii.
I'd argue that Hawaii independence would greatly benefit Hawaii. Particularly when you consider how much money flows into Hawaii and out into foreign held corporations or corporations Hq'd in other states. Deregulations over our labor, industrial (farm/energy/fisheries), environmental resources are also causing irreparable damage. Native Hawaiian management over these resources does not necessarily ensure that Hawaii will be free of corruption or bad policy, but it does ensure that Hawaiians and our citizenry will have a greater voice in the management and policy of our island resources, than being subject to US free-market neo-liberalism.
Hawaii should be placed back on the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. This way, those who will vote (the other controversy), will finally have the opportunity to engage in a real conversation about Hawaii's future and the role it can play as a 21st century Pacific Island.
Liliʻuokalani never committed genocide against her subjects or started wars, while Saddam Hussein seemed to enjoy killing some of his fellow Iraqis and provoked a war with Iran.
Yes, I agree. thank you for pointing it out. Would you agree they both were removed from power? with the help of the US in some way shape or form? Thus making it illegal... I believe I read some place that GWB said. "I will not be a nation builder"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonah K
Unfortunately, this ignores the geopolitical alliances that exist between nations. The Kuwaitis had alliances with other nations (including the United States) that came to their defense after they were invaded by Iraq. The Hawaiian Kingdom had diplomatic relations with other nations, but none of these nations came to its defense when its sovereignty was lost.
I agree, not to discern your view. I was merely pointing out the fact that the US wanted Iraq out of kuwait and Saddam wanted the US out of Hawaii. Both in violations of the constitution as well as international laws
I agree.. Hawaii now has to deal with what the feds did in Micronesia. Now the Micronesians can come and go freely throughout the US and their not citizens. Are the feds even helping the state with any $$$ for support?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonah K
I would say something about the current state of "Hawaiian Studies" and some of the folks that teach it, but I don't wish to criticize my cousins...
My post meant that 93% of the people who voted in 1959 overwhelmingly voted for statehood. Furthermore, when you look at a territory like Puerto Rico where the vote is around 50% - the push to become a state isn't very strong. I'd bet if the vote in Puerto Rico voted 93% to become a state it would become one.
Nope, don't know who couldn't vote - I'd like to hear more on that. I do know it had the highest voter turnout in Hawaii history. I also know Native Hawaiians were US citizens in 1959 and were eligible to vote on the referendum.
Of course, had the United States taken up King Kamehameha III request to become part of the US in the late 1840's/early 1850's this discussion wouldn't be happening - or would it.
was told by Kupuna that some Hawaiian's couldn't vote, by not being able to read the english language?
What really gets me is that? in a preceding the 9th circuit court where they....... they said. Hmmm. Me thinks...... could the 9th plead the 5th on the matter? I mean why would they say such a thing? So if this is to be true??? Me thinks......
In addition, the 9th Circuit Court, in Kahawaiola`a v. Norton, 386 F.3rd 1271
(2004), also acknowledged the Hawaiian Kingdom’s status as “a co-equal sovereign alongside the United States.” Furthermore, in Doe v. Kamehameha, 416 F.3d 1025, 1048 (2005), the Court stated that, “in 1866, the Hawaiian Islands were still a sovereign kingdom.” Clearly, the Kingdom of Hawaii continues to exist. Testimony in Opposition to SB 1520 Keoni Agard‏ - Maoliworld
As recently as 2005, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that in 1866, "the Hawaiian Islands were still a sovereign kingdom"; prior to that, in 2004, the Court referred to Hawaii as a "co-equal sovereign alongside the United States." Likewise, in 2001, the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague acknowledged in an arbitration award that "in the 19th century the Hawaiian Kingdom existed as an independent State recognized as such by the United States of America, the United Kingdom and various other States … ." Hawaii's Legal Case Against the United States
Hawaii should be placed back on the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. This way, those who will vote (the other controversy), will finally have the opportunity to engage in a real conversation about Hawaii's future and the role it can play as a 21st century Pacific Island.
great post, links no work though.
I recently read as to how hawaii was removed... arg.
Since Hawai'i was a "territory" of the United States in 1945, it is no surprise that the United Nations in 1946 listed Hawai'i as a Non-Self-Governing Territory under the administration of the United States (Resolution 55(I) of 14th December 1946). Also listed as non-self-governing territories under the jurisdiction of the United States were Alaska, American S...moa, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
From 1946 to 1959 when Statehood was imposed on Hawai'i, the United States had: 1) a "sacred trust" obligation to the "inhabitants" of Hawai'i detailed in sections a. and b. above, and 2) an annual reporting obligation to the General Assembly under e. above.
a. to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;
b. to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement...; Hawai'i and the United Nations | Cultural Survival
e. to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General for information purposes, subject to such limitation as security and constitutional considerations may require, statistical and other information of a technical nature relating to economic, social and educational conditions in the territories for which they are respectively responsible other than those territories to which Chapters XII and XIII apply."(1)
I've been referring to the statehood vote in 1959. Native Hawaiians were US citizens and could vote.
The link you provided was someone writing to the Maui news about annexation in the 1890's and not related to the 1959 vote.
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.
