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.
Obviously you don't believe in the "might is right" argument guys do you? I have a hard time with that because people who truely believe that might is right in society don't hide behind laws, police or politicians that protect there personal properties, agendas etc?
You don't get the joke. A might is right argument is just as silly as a Hawaii Sovereign movement for which nobody is alive today when Hawaii was a nation. Nobody. If the state wants to put it on the ballot, I'm happy to vote on it - it would be ridiculous what the outcome would be. Hawaii would be a laughingstock.
I'll reinterate, we WON, and no vote would be honored. The last batter in that game was Jefferson Davis, and he, and his Confederates, well, dare I say, LOST. Honest Abe, and US Grant et al kicked his backsides back into the Union.
You should know me better than that. I don't freak out. At least not over a conversation with electronic phantoms.
Quote:
Doing the right thing can mean giving the kanaka moali the right to vote which direction they want to go (self determination) instead of stacking the deck to the desirable special interest.
Sorry, you are not being clear. If you are talking about "giving the kanaka maoli the right to vote which direction they want to go" concerning their own governance, on already defined Hawaiian Homelands, I don't know anyone who is opposed to that.
But if you mean you want, say, 20% of the current population to be able to vote, by virtue of their kanaka maoli ancestry, on the future of the entire state, that's not only manifestly unfair to the remaining 80% of the residents, it simply has zero chance of ever happening. Ever. Not ever. Never.
And since only about 4% of that minority group registered themselves with OHA to vote on kanaka maoli affairs, I think it shows clearly that this is NOT an issue that the average "native Hawaiian" (official Office of Hawaiian Affairs terminology, with the small "n") actually cares very much about. This is nothing more than a tempest in a teapot, cooked up by a small handful of gadflies and professional activists, who hope to knock off a chunk or two of personal benefit by pressing a cause that was lost before it began. From a PRACTICAL sense, this was all settled more than 100 years ago.
Do you know the real estate principle of "sweat equity," in which the value of a property is increased when the owner putswork into improving the property? At the time of the Hawaiian "overthrow," much of the land in Hawai'i was undeveloped, or marginally improved, and very little of it was owned by "native Hawaiians." Much of it, in fact, was owned by the Doles and Shipmans and Parkers and Cooks, who had invested in plantations, and the infrastructure to support them, and who had the right to vote on matters of the day. Clearly their rights, and their descendant's rights would trampled on by a straight-up kanaka maoli vote. They all have "sweat equity" in the state that has been built since the monarchy collapsed. But you never hear anyone talking about that. It's all as if the kanaka maoli are the only ones who have a legitimate claim to Hawai'i because their ancestors lived there in 1893, but in reality, so did a whole lot of other people.
I see your point. However, PI wasn't a state, and I was referring to secession.
Hawaiʻi wasn't a state in 1946 when the U.S. granted independence to the Philippines. Of course, it's a little tricky to argue for Hawaiian sovereignty when Liliʻuokalani neglected to change the name of her official residence from "Washington Place" after she inherited it from her husband, American-born John O. Dominis in 1891.
Sorry, you are not being clear. If you are talking about "giving the kanaka maoli the right to vote which direction they want to go" concerning their own governance, on already defined Hawaiian Homelands, I don't know anyone who is opposed to that.
But if you mean you want, say, 20% of the current population to be able to vote, by virtue of their kanaka maoli ancestry, on the future of the entire state, that's not only manifestly unfair to the remaining 80% of the residents, it simply has zero chance of ever happening. Ever. Not ever. Never.
But if you mean you want, say, 20% of the current population to be able to vote, by virtue of their kanaka maoli ancestry, on the future of the entire state, that's not only manifestly unfair to the remaining 80% of the residents, it simply has zero chance of ever happening. Ever. Not ever. Never. End quote
So the no vote on annexation and the vote for statehood has controversies. Examining the assertion that 94% of Hawaii’s citizens voted for statehood, actual numbers reveal a much smaller percentage and the numbers suggest that only 35% of eligible voters actively sought statehood. The total population of Hawaii from the nearest 1960 Census data reports a population of 632,772, with the median age being 38. Surprisingly, only sixty percent of the population were of voting age and 381,859 were eligible to vote. Out of the population at the time of the vote 23% weren't born in Hawai'i, of the population 202,230 or 31% of the population was mainland caucasian.
The Native Hawai'ian population including mixed blood was only 15% of the population .
Do i need to go on? Every step of the process from the overthrow of the queen to statehood etc has some shady stuff or controversies. Do you think it was fair to the kanaka moari to vote on an issue of statehood when everyone could of voted no and still lost? It wasn't your government or land being lost? Further if you look past your loyalties and personal agendas and look at the events. Its reasonable to believe something is not right.
And since only about 4% of that minority group registered themselves with OHA to vote on kanaka maoli affairs, I think it shows clearly that this is NOT an issue that the average "native Hawaiian" (official Office of Hawaiian Affairs terminology, with the small "n") actually cares very much about. end quote:
You really disappoint me with this one uncle. Its obvious you have lost touch with natives. The turn out is not uncommon. Native American Indians have no trust for the B.I.A. And i would assume the same goes for Kanaka Moali and the O.H.A? The mistrust is earned. To say there is a lack of interest because of turnout is misguided. Just like Hawai'i politics people care but don't want to put effort into it because its broken, corrupt and controled by special interests and people feel it wont matter. Kinda like what natives feel about the B.I.A etc.
Hawaiian By Heart, when you are going to do what's right and stand up for the people from Marquesas who had Hawaii stolen from them by the Tahitians?
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.
