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.
Captain Cook based his population estimates mainly on Hawaiians that lived in coastal areas. Hawaiians that lived inland or in valleys weren't counted. David E. Stannard's "Before the Horror: The Population of Hawaiʻi on the Eve of Western Contact" presents the case a higher "pre-contact" population count.
That's one view, and one I'll have to check out, thanks.
On the other hand, I think the post-contact counts argue for a lower count to begin with. If Cook's men only estimated based on coastal areas, but over-estimated those counts, that could account for the discrepancy.
Here's the whole sequence, according to EncyclopediaHawaiian.org:
Quote:
1778—Captain Cook’s crew estimates the population of the Hawaiian Islands at about 400,000. Later estimates vary from less than 300,000 to more than 700,000.
1805—The population of the Hawaiian Islands is documented at 264,160.
1831—The first archipelago census gives a population of 130,313.
1850—The native Hawaiian population is about 82,000 people.
1853—The population of the Hawaiian Islands is 73,134, including 2,119 foreigners. The native Hawaiian population continues to decline from an estimated 300,000 people living in the Hawaiian Islands at the time of first Western contact (see Chapter 11, Timeline: 1778, Jan. 18).
1872—The population of the Hawaiian Islands is documented at 56,897 people.
1876—The population of the Hawaiian Islands is 53,900 people. After this date, the overall population stops decreasing and begins to increase, though the native population continues to decline.
At the time of the plebiscite vote 75% of the population were born in Hawai'i.
1959 roughly only about 35% of the total population actually voted "yes" or "no" on the plebiscit 341,800. —or roughly 65%— did not vote in favor of statehood.
So your saying that out of the 35% who votted for statehood 25% weren't even from Hawai'i? So basically 26% of the people who would be effectted by this major choice votted?
And out of the 25% of the population who votted, 97% agreed to statehood. So basically less then a 4th of the population of Hawai'i agreed to statehood? Wonder how many who didn't vote were disnfranchised Native Hawaiians or poor people, uneducated or didn't trust the system or even told how to vote etc? Further i would assume this was the first real major voting issue in Hawai'i
Please don't say it can't happen, we have issues about voting in poor districts of this country already. Further, we didn't even have the checks and balances back then as we do now.
on the process of voting? Or disinfanchised by past event? Further, on such a vote,basicly to end a nation and start another don't you think the vote should have been left to the Hawai'ians who are truely going to be effectted and lose there country, id etc etc? .
You are suggesting that the only "fair" election is one rigged in such a way as to guarantee the outcome you would have preferred to see. Under your proposal, you feel it is fair to disenfranchise the majority population, most of whom were born and raised in Hawaii and many of whom had been there for generations, in order to allow only one specific race the right to vote and Disenfranchise all other residents. And this the fair solution in your eyes?
It does not even seem to matter to you that at the time of the overthrow, native Hawaiiians were already a vast minority of the population. The demographics were changing and only disenfranchisement based on race could keep the Monarchy in power.
It is also noteworthy that Robert Dole, who was a primary leader of the overthrow of the Queen, was born and raised in Hawaii. In my opinion, that makes him as equal a "native Hawaiian" as anyone else born & raised in Hawaii. Unless of course, it's a race based argument. Here in the United States I consider anyone born here, or any new immigrant here with citizenship, to be equal to me in their right to participate in the country and it's governance. Even though my family has been here more generations than perhaps theirs. In my opinion, that same fairness should be applied to Hawaii. And I believe it was during the vote for statehood.
I just struggle with arguments promoting disenfranchisement of people and making some people less equal.
Captain Cook based his population estimates mainly on Hawaiians that lived in coastal areas. Hawaiians that lived inland or in valleys weren't counted. David E. Stannard's "Before the Horror: The Population of Hawaiʻi on the Eve of Western Contact" presents the case a higher "pre-contact" population count.
So your saying that out of the 35% who votted for statehood 25% weren't even from Hawai'i? So basically 26% of the people who would be effectted by this major choice votted?
You are getting yourself all twisted up in this, when the simple fact is that people who bothered to vote on the issue made the decision. Period.
Quote:
And out of the 25% of the population who votted, 97% agreed to statehood. So basically less then a 4th of the population of Hawai'i agreed to statehood? Wonder how many who didn't vote were disnfranchised Native Hawaiians or poor people, uneducated or didn't trust the system or even told how to vote etc? Further i would assume this was the first real major voting issue in Hawai'i
Elections had been going on in Hawai'i for over 100 years at this point. And yes, there were people who were disenfranchised for much of this time, but they were not the Native Hawaiians. The ones who were forbidden to vote, or discouraged from voting the longest were those of Japanese heritage, or Chinese, or Filipino.
Also consider that this topic was widely discussed and debated across the islands, and the plebiscite vote also corresponded to a general election, so anyone who wanted to participate in the vote for or against statehood had the opportunity, and those who chose to participate made the decision. That's how the democratic process works.
Quote:
Please don't say it can't happen, we have issues about voting in poor districts of this country already. Further, we didn't even have the checks and balances back then as we do now.
Don't make things up. There was no vote fraud involved, and none alleged. Obviously a lot of people just didn't care enough to take a stand one way or the other. So they lost their right to complain about how it turned out.
We've fought many wars to establish and protect our right to vote, including a very big one just a few years earlier in which many Hawaiians lost their lives. What's the point of all that struggle and loss if people don't bother to use the vote we fought for?
It was a fair election, and it's a done deal, and 53 years later the matter is completely settled for all practical purposes. A tiny group of extremists disagree. So? It won't change anything.
I would guess oppression is a matter of perception. Because at the time of the overthrow of the Hawai'ian Kingdom, Hawai'ian citzans were more literate per capital then the mainland. Further Hawai'ians also had other advancements before the mainland did. All under the monarchy. Big difference from today.
The ultimate question is what were Hawaiians reading in the 19th Century? Most were probably reading books and newspapers that the missionaries (or their students) had a hand in producing, which "set the stage" for subsequent mental and actual colonization. So while the missionaries came to Hawaiʻi to "do good" and bring literacy to the Hawaiian people, their descendants "did real well" and ended up controlling much of the land.
You are suggesting that the only "fair" election is one rigged in such a way as to guarantee the outcome you would have preferred to see. Under your proposal, you feel it is fair to disenfranchise the majority population, most of whom were born and raised in Hawaii and many of whom had been there for generations, in order to allow only one specific race the right to vote and Disenfranchise all other residents. And this the fair solution in your eyes? ......
Excellent post!
Wish it would let me give you another Rep point.
(Same goes for posts made by Whtviper1, OpenD & Jonah K)
That's one view, and one I'll have to check out, thanks.
On the other hand, I think the post-contact counts argue for a lower count to begin with. If Cook's men only estimated based on coastal areas, but over-estimated those counts, that could account for the discrepancy.
Here's the whole sequence, according to EncyclopediaHawaiian.org:
Keep in mind that Captain Cook and his men only made landfall three times in Hawaiʻi. The first landfall was at Waimea on Kaua'i in 1778. The second landfall was at Kealakekua Bay on the Big Island in 1779. And, the third landfall, also at Kealakekua Bay (a month after the second landfall in 1779), resulted in events that got Cook killed. In other words, Cook didn't make landfall in Hilo or other parts of the Big Island or on any other Hawaiian island, other than Kauaʻi. It's a little difficult to get an accurate count of a particular population when one hardly goes ashore, but most folks accepted Cook's numbers without question. While HawaiianEncyclopedia.com (not "EncyclopediaHawaiian.org") provides a nice, cursory overview of some aspects of Hawaiian history, it's not particularly authoritative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whtviper1
He isn't really getting stellar reviews......
The only reviews of "Before the Horror" that really count are the ones by scholars. It's a dry, boring monograph that was somewhat controversial in its day. However, no one has really been able to successfully challenge Stannard's theories about the "pre-contact" population of Hawaiʻi. Stannard's subsequent book, "American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World" provides a similar analysis of the "pre-contact" population of the Americas and is a much better read for the non-academic.
Your post: You are suggesting that the only "fair" election is one rigged in such a way as to guarantee the outcome you would have preferred to see. Under your proposal, you feel it is fair to disenfranchise the majority population, most of whom were born and raised in Hawaii and many of whom had been there for generations, in order to allow only one specific race the right to vote and Disenfranchise all other residents. And this the fair solution in your eyes?
Vs what my friend? A thriving civilization with anywhere from 200,000 to 800,000 Fullblooded Hawaiians before cook landed bringing small pox and other diseases, that decimated a population of Native Hawaiians to the current time of voting for statehood, at the time of the vote for statehood, fullblooded Native Hawai'ians population was 10,502, and part-Hawaiians were counted at 91,597, for a total of 102,097. Big difference between 200,000-800,000 fullblooded Hawai'ians .
Cont next post: please let me finish b4 responding.
So your argument against my proposal, is you feel it is not fair to disenfranchise the majority population for a minority of people. When no fault of there own Hawai'ians numbers where decimated and Had there kingdom siezed for the minority? Then claim that any vote is fair by majority? No my friend its sounds like you rigged an election to your favor.
Lets approach this another way, we never know what could of been, so everything is just speculation. But imagine if others actions never effected the peoples of the kingdom of Hawai'i. Do you think you would of been the majority of the population? So who really is taking advantage of who?
The US has a history of choosing the few over the majority when it comes to native peoples. Look at the Native American Indians Millions strong, wiped out for a few settlers. I have to agree with Kawena on his point, that the US likes to play fair or set rules and expects everyone to follow them intill its not in there favor then all bets are off
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.
It's a dry, boring monograph that was somewhat 
