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.
what are the native hawaiian issues?? they are being sued for? by?
seems the US never learned from their past?? did they? Once again..... Iraq, Afghanistan... soon syria.. the US is the one that routinely breaks international laws as well as their own constitution..
There issue was that the Hawai'ians came to populate the islands they conquered the people who were already on the islands. A brave argument to avoid really looking at the issue.
What still baffles me is how there was such a low turnout for Kanakas in the vote for statehood but recorded documentation of great protest to annexation and everything else. And not even a inkling of suspicion? in 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. But according to Anti-annexation petitions - Page 1 out of all the Kanakas they got to sign the protest letters only like a thousand signatures where missing from making it 100% total against annexation for the Kanaka peoples. And even with all of this and the way the kingdom was overthrown not even a smidgin of suspicion from you guys who oppose our view? That gives me chickn skin And makes me wonder is there any hope for change in humanity?
Location: not sure, but there's a hell of a lot of water around here!
2,682 posts, read 7,569,617 times
Reputation: 3882
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawaiian by heart
What still baffles me is how there was such a low turnout for Kanakas in the vote for statehood but recorded documentation of great protest to annexation and everything else. And not even a inkling of suspicion? in 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. But according to Anti-annexation petitions - Page 1 out of all the Kanakas they got to sign the protest letters only like a thousand signatures where missing from making it 100% total against annexation for the Kanaka peoples. And even with all of this and the way the kingdom was overthrown not even a smidgin of suspicion from you guys who oppose our view? That gives me chickn skin And makes me wonder is there any hope for change in humanity?
There issue was that the Hawai'ians came to populate the islands they conquered the people who were already on the islands. A brave argument to avoid really looking at the issue.
Make your case........ bring it to the ICC..... UN... Hague... If you got a case bring it to me. thats if its a case of ice cold Bud Light bottles...
Quote:
Originally Posted by McFrostyJ
That was a very nice gesture. Now let's learn from the past wrongs that were done by every race, including native Hawaiians, and let's move on and work on making a better world for everyone.
we are trying to make this world a better place. the lesion learned from the past in this case the Hawaiians were wronged. Hence... illegal over throw. Making the world a better place..... The HKG is trying to make it better for them by bringing to the surface the true facts of the incident. Now once Hawaii is taken care of, I am thinking the HKG can start to help the world become a better place. You need to start at home a better place before you tackle the world..
wait......... wait a minute!!!! did I just say that, huh.... start at home and making it a better place before you tackle the world. I agree with you Michael Jackson had a good idea behind the song... Can you please go play that song to the people in politics in Washington. and tell them you "making the world a better place for everyone"
Also tell those politicians..... to start at home. Do you admit that they are trying to make the world a better place?
you got to be.. smoking sumtin.... to think the election was fare.........
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawaiian by heart
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD
I'm embarassed for you both that you lowered yourselves to thinking a personal attack is an appropriate response to what I posted. I don't do drugs and there's nothing wrong with my thinking; I just don't agree with you. And I've treated you with respect. You both owe me an apology.
This has been a reasonably civil discourse so far. I'd like to see it stay that way. Please stick to the issues, rather than personal comments. "Attack the argument, not the person," per the TOS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD
And now it's time for apologies for a personal attack by live people on this forum to a live person on this forum. You were out of line. I'm waiting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kawena
no worries my future descendants will take kea! I was out of line. which line was I standing in.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawaiian by heart
It ok OpenD, it was in past we all friends here. Lets agree to disagree but not be disagreable? Aloha
That's it? That's all you've got?
You broke the rules here* by dismissing me as having diminished mental capacity due to taking drugs, which is close to being the most offensive false statement you could possibly make about me, and then your only response to being called out for your violation is to mock me for being offended?
And yet you want folks today to join your demand to make amends now for a 120 old mistake, fomented by other people who are long dead against other people who are long dead?? I find that to be a hypocritical position, since you won't make an apology yourself to someone you've deeply offended right now, right here.
*From the TOS:
Quote:
Be civil, no personal attacks, flaming, or insults. We may attack ideas (politely) but we do not attack the speaker of the idea. Be careful with your words, there is a point where being direct crosses a line into blunt, in-your-face hostility. Please, report bad posts instead of engaging in flame wars on the boards. Insulting another member or a moderator will not be tolerated anywhere on this website. This includes Direct Messages and Reputation Comments.
If you disagree with something, say so, but explain WHY.
From the FAQ on Personal Attacks:
Quote:
A personal attack is a derogatory statement or statements directed at a specific poster. Derogatory statements include, but are not limited to, the following:
*****Negative remarks about a person' intelligence, e.g. IQ level, reading comprehension ability; use of the words retard, stupid, dumb and similar; asking their grade in school
*****Negative remarks about a person's physical or psychiatric health, e.g. accusing a member of senility; needing/forgetting psychiatric medications; making psychiatric diagnosis such as paranoid, bi-polar and the like; suggesting a member needs psychiatric help
*****Negative remarks impugning a member's character or morals
*****Threats of physical violence, or advocating of same, to a member, member's family or their property
You broke the rules here* by dismissing me as having diminished mental capacity due to taking drugs, which is close to being the most offensive false statement you could possibly make about me, and then your only response to being called out for your violation is to mock me for being offended?
And yet you want folks today to join your demand to make amends now for a 120 old mistake, fomented by other people who are long dead against other people who are long dead?? I find that to be a hypocritical position, since you won't make an apology yourself to someone you've deeply offended right now, right here.
*From the TOS:
From the FAQ on Personal Attacks:
But you don't find this offensive?
1.Don't make things up(attack on my credibility, you calling me dishonest?)
2.group of extremists(personal bias opp on less favorable political views)
3.your not living in reality (you saying im delusional?)
There is clearly no way the people on this forum are going to agree on this issue. In my opinion, nothing new is being brought up. Things are starting to get dirty (name calling etc...). So, I respectively suggest we move on. I wish both Hawaiian By Heart and Kawena much luck in fighting the HUGE up hill battle they have chose to take on. I also wish much luck to all the many people both with and without native Hawaiian blood, who have spent their whole lives living on the islands of Hawaii and don't want to choose between their country and the land that they love.
Now, back to the fun stuff!
Did you know that Hawaii was the first state to start with the letter H?
I said I'm deeply offended by the inference that drugs have affected my mental ability. As in deeply offended. Trust me on this point. You can't fix it by telling me why I shouldn't be offended, or by deflecting my upset with excuses.
And your tag back at my complaint is not in the same league at all. Not remotely. If you knew me better you would not even question what I'm telling you.
Quote:
1.Don't make things up(attack on my credibility, you calling me dishonest?)
No, I was pointing out that you offered no proof, and could not, because what you were saying was contradicted by known facts. That's nothing at all like saying my mental ability was affected by drugs.
Quote:
2.group of extremists(personal bias opp on less favorable political views)
That wasn't a personal attack. It wasn't even a personal comment. But I do think it's an appropriate term to apply to those prominent sovereignty groups which advocate disenfranchising 94% of the current population of the state by turning the government over to an extremely small group on the basis of their ancestry.
Here are the definitions. I think they totally fit the likes of Lopaka Brown and Uncle Abel (Abel Simeona Lui) and Mahealeani Kahau and their supporters. But that's nothing at all like saying my mental ability was affected by drugs.
Extremist: a person who goes to extremes, especially in political matters.
Extremism: belief in and support for ideas that are very far from what most people consider correct or reasonable.
Quote:
3.your not living in reality (you saying im delusional?)
No, that was a pragmatic observation about the sovereignty movement, based on how things actually work in the real world. Coordinated action is needed to effect change on such a massive scale. But consider that all the fractional huis associated with this issue can't even get together on who the monarch should be if this extremely unlikely scenario should come to pass, and the Hawaiian Royal Government of 1893 was restored. Here's a typical claim, which other Hawaiian Nationalists would say is dead wrong. So let's have him and them fight about it, because then nothing at all will happen.
Quote:
The only rightful heirs are the Laanuis or the Kawananakoas as the highest ranking chiefs in the land and the closest to connection to the House of Kamehamhea and Kalakaua. There are many false pretenders like Akahi Nui (claimed descendant of Kamehameha I and Liliuokalani's sister) and Mahealani Kahau (claimed descendant of Hawaii's last king who was elected "head of state").
But that comment is nothing at all like saying my mental ability was affected by drugs.
Can you hear me now?
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.
