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.
How do you find balance and justice for a people who will always lose to the game being riged.
1) The Estimated population of Hawaii was between 300,000 to 500,000 before Captain Cook and western diseases. Population at time of Statehood etc was 10,000 fullblooded Kanaka Moali and 80,000 mixblooded hawaiians. Thats a far cry from the 300,000 to 500,000. So the ideal of majority rules in voting would never work for the Kanaka Moali because even if they all voted no to statehood, they could still lose. In the vote it was found that the majority of Kanaka Moali who voted were against statehood. Further what was also interesting is On March 29, 1949, Kamokila Campbell successfully sued the Hawaii Statehood Commission, to stop them from spending public money to lobby for statehood,*...
2) At annexation, Petition Against Annexation" and written in both the Hawaiian and English languages, was signed by 21,269 native Hawaiian people, or more than half the 39,000 native Hawaiians
How do you find balance and justice for a people who will always lose to the game being riged.
1) The Estimated population of Hawaii was between 300,000 to 500,000 before Captain Cook and western diseases. Population at time of Statehood etc was 10,000 fullblooded Kanaka Moali and 80,000 mixblooded hawaiians. Thats a far cry from the 300,000 to 500,000. So the ideal of majority rules in voting would never work for the Kanaka Moali because even if they all voted no to statehood, they could still lose. In the vote it was found that the majority of Kanaka Moali who voted were against statehood. Further what was also interesting is On March 29, 1949, Kamokila Campbell successfully sued the Hawaii Statehood Commission, to stop them from spending public money to lobby for statehood,*...
2) At annexation, Petition Against Annexation" and written in both the Hawaiian and English languages, was signed by 21,269 native Hawaiian people, or more than half the 39,000 native Hawaiians
Continued next post
By losing, they won. The world, their world included, is far better off for what happened. Yes, some bacon was smoked and fried, and eggs cracked, but all-in-all it is a NET Winner. Nobody wants to go backwards, except a few opportunists/quasi racketeers.
You act as if the roles were reversed, that the winners, in this case, the Native Hawaiians, would have acted any differently. One can only speculate, but if my memory serves, Kam took over, i.e. consolidated, by brutal violent bloody force.
How do you find balance and justice for a people who will always lose to the game being riged.
1) The Estimated population of Hawaii was between 300,000 to 500,000 before Captain Cook and western diseases. Population at time of Statehood etc was 10,000 fullblooded Kanaka Moali and 80,000 mixblooded hawaiians. Thats a far cry from the 300,000 to 500,000. So the ideal of majority rules in voting would never work for the Kanaka Moali because even if they all voted no to statehood, they could still lose. In the vote it was found that the majority of Kanaka Moali who voted were against statehood. Further what was also interesting is On March 29, 1949, Kamokila Campbell successfully sued the Hawaii Statehood Commission, to stop them from spending public money to lobby for statehood,*...
2) At annexation, Petition Against Annexation" and written in both the Hawaiian and English languages, was signed by 21,269 native Hawaiian people, or more than half the 39,000 native Hawaiians
Continued next post
Is it your position that Native Hawaiians, i.e. members of one race, have a higher set of rights than members of other races????? Obviously you do because you want to exclude the voting to only one racial/ethnic group.
I think it is time for you to do a Calender Check. When you do, you'll notice it is 2014!! Act like it, if you please!!!!
More than half the 39,000 native Hawaiians and mixed-blood persons reported by the Hawaiian Commission census for the same year.
3) The lack of treaty with America, the letters from the queen (representing the people of hawaii), the way the queen was overthrown and all of the above are just some of the most glaring of illegal, unethical acts. There are tons more like how the Congress of the Unitted States the first time around votted down annexation of Hawaii, i guess they had to wait for the right partymembers to get electted?
My point is i could careless if the monarchy is restored. I want the kanaka moali to finally have a voice in the direction they want to live. What i find kinda sick is if even 1/4 of this happened in our countries current political environment there would be outrage. The right thing to do is what? So sorry it happened 100 years later, or because we are profiting now its ok? Remember its not just 100 years ago, today current generations are effectted
Is it your position that Native Hawaiians, i.e. members of one race, have a higher set of rights than members of other races????? Obviously you do because you want to exclude the voting to only one racial/ethnic group.
I think it is time for you to do a Calender Check. When you do, you'll notice it is 2014!! Act like it, if you please!!!!
Lets take a look at the vote for stathood ok? 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. 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. 23% of the population were out-of-state residents at the time the 1960 census was taken, still suggesting a substantial sampling of non-native resident voters.
^^^
At the time of the vote for statehood, some questionable things cameup.
A) On March 29, 1949, Kamokila Campbell successfully sued the Hawaii Statehood Commission, to stop them from spending public money to lobby for statehood,*...
B) Aligations of not educating some neighborhoods on how to vote or on the rights to vote were brought out.
C) The hawaii vote had issues within the guidelines of the United Nations for voting on issues of statehood. I guess we were suppose to include a third option commonwealth/statehood/independence, which other U.S territories had during votes of statehood.
This got me thinking - all this talk about "illegal" overthrow.....
What would have been the "legal" way in the 1890's to overthrow a place - is just a procedural thing? Were laws on the books in the 1890's preventing things like this? If there were no laws on the books about overthrowing, does that mean by default, it isn't really "illegal", perhaps just a gray area?
Lets take a look at the vote for stathood ok? 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. 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. 23% of the population were out-of-state residents at the time the 1960 census was taken, still suggesting a substantial sampling of non-native resident voters.
It is widely accepted that Kennedy stole the election from Nixon, with the help of Daley.
However it is done and over with, and need not nor should not be revisited. It is a done deal. Let the dead dog lie.
The KM can just accept reality and live their lives.
Your quote: Is it your position that Native Hawaiians, i.e. members of one race, have a higher set of rights than members of other races????? Obviously you do because you want to exclude the voting to only one racial/ethnic group. End quote:
Since there was no vote for annexation of Hawaii and there was no option of independence in the vote for stathood. Where did the kanaka moali of the Hawaiian Kingdom get to vote? It was there country, goverment etc that was being replaced. Not the 23% of the population who were out-of-state residents at the time of the election etc etc? Talk about rigging the table to your favor? Why would you think anybody who is a U.S citizen if they have no ties to Hawaii besides living there 30days and beyond or the Hawaiian kingdom should get to vote?
This got me thinking - all this talk about "illegal" overthrow.....
What would have been the "legal" way in the 1890's to overthrow a place - is just a procedural thing? Were laws on the books in the 1890's preventing things like this? If there were no laws on the books about overthrowing, does that mean by default, it isn't really "illegal", perhaps just a gray area?
I believe the argument is every territory that the U.S held prier to statehood had a treaty with the original goverment or owners of the territories before statehood. Hawaii never had one which makes it illegal.
If you have a long string of events and in the middle of the sting an illegal action happens, wouldnt that make everything after that illegal thing void? Futher, i wouldnt care if after they voted that native hawaiians decided to remain americans and a state. At least they were given the right to decide.
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.
