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.
All kidding aside, I've never understood why a group of people feel so entitled about control of Hawaii. Just because a group of people took a bunch of canoes over and reproduced over the years doesn't entitle you to a restoration of the monarchy just because you are descended from them. But hey, that's just my opinion.
Actually, it was a little more involved than that. The Hawaiian monarchy was probably destined to fail when it went from being a hereditary monarchy to an elective one. The primary duty of a monarch is to produce an official "heir and a spare"; however, every Hawaiian monarch after Kamehameha I failed to accomplish this simple task. The Kingdom of Hawaiʻi went from father to son to brother to nephew to brother to second cousin (by election) to distant cousin (by another election) to sister. And, if Liliʻuokalani hadn't been overthrown, the monarchy would've probably gone to her sister-in-law's nephew. In contrast, most of the monarchs of the Kingdom of Tonga (which managed to survive) did much better in the official "heir and a spare" department. It went from grandfather to grandson to daughter to son to son to brother.
I can see that your Puzzled.... why you got to get all racist? you making accusations about "ha'oles" Did I say the HKG (Hawaiian Kingdom Government) was race based? where did you get that idea from?
From your posts, and from the websites of the various secessionist groups. When you talk about giving and taking and restoring to Native Hawaiians it's all about race, obviously. And since there are a dozen or more organizations pulling in different directions, with various concepts of what to do and how to do it, it's notable to me that yours is... according to you... the only one talking about accepting non-Native members.
Quote:
HGK should consist... of?? guess??? wanna take a stab at it?? clue... Hawaiian Nationals people who pledge allegiance to the nation of Hawaii.
And who would those people be? Why would anyone who does not have native-Hawaiian blood even be interested? There's no rational reason I can see that an average property owner or resident of Hawai'i would want to support this. "Give up my US citizenship and my Social Security check so that someone I don't know can be my King? No thank you!"
And as for Native Hawaiians, how many actually would be willing to abandon their modern lifestyles and follow Bumpy Kanahele's example of living the simple life at Nation of Hawai'i? *
Quote:
Remember apology resolution?? legal? Oh... wait it was an apology for an illegal act... right?
now in the US court of law an illegal act becomes legal? No, of course not.. the best thing to do in that case is never to let it be heard in the courts........
It has been heard in the courts, and the decision was that the apology did not create any liability. It was a nice gesture, little more.
Quote:
Cabish...
Not sure what this means. Were you trying to say "capiche," which is Italianish slang for "understand?" If so, yes, I capiche what you are saying, but I can't agree with it.
Quote:
Akaka Bill.... which version? Hawaiians are not a tribe never was we have our own identity "Native Hawaiians" we have our own monarchy.
Which one? There are several different groups of activists, each claiming that they are the true monarchy. This is what I meant about this never going anywhere because there are so many different groups and agendas at play, all pulling in different directions.
And claiming that Native Hawaiians are not a "tribe" doesn't help your case, because the social structure was completely tribal until the reign of Kamehameha III, about 100 years ago. Nobody is saying Native Hawaiians will be grouped together with First Nation (Native American) peoples, or Alaska Natives, whose civilizations date back as much as 12,000 years on the mainland, just that there will be lands set aside on which members of the native group can have a measure of autonomy. As a matter of fact, the Akaka bill is quite specific about the proposed structure for Native Hawaiian "self-rule" being in a separate class from the other native groups, including specifically not legalizing gambling on "Hawaiian homelands."
*(For anyone who tuned in late, this old NPR story will give you a quick catch-up on what the Akaka bill is about, and introduce you to Bumpy Kanahele, the man who calls himself Head of The Nation of Hawai'i... Native Hawaiians Seek Self Rule : NPR)
I think whats baffling about this conversation is the logic of it. I find it hard for anyone who opposes the sovereignty movement to have a leg to stand on, no offense but obviously this modern day and age we know that taking something by force or gunpoint is wrong. The states laws reflect that. Then how can it be right what happened in the past? I believe if it was taken by other means, lets say the rich tycoons bought Hawai'i from the monarch or the country collapsed from within then that would be a different story, but it wasn't. Much like the criminal who envades your house and robs you of your goods. Same thing happened when the rich sent in the marines to overthrow the rightful ruler. Its interesting when profit or self interests are involved we throw out our ideals of what is right or wrong.
Agreed any forceful means of taking land and property is wrong. And if the Hawai'ians did it then the ppls who had been overthrown can make a claim to Hawai'i. But that dosnt excuse the U.S.
There seems to me a stark irony in the argument that a monarchy which came to power through war and forceful overthrow of neighboring island chiefs, should be given back the power they lost through means less violent than the means to gain and consolidate their power in the first place.
This is an excellent point!
I wonder if the native Hawaiians would feel better if the United States had declared war, came over and ran them all up the cliffs until they were eventually forced to jump off?
Here's the thing as I see it. Humans through out time and all over the world have done some very disgusting things to take land and resources. IF we were to start correcting these wrongs, how far would we go back and where would it end? Who would then own what? Would Hawaii then be known as Menehune-ville?
I wonder if the native Hawaiians would feel better if the United States had declared war, came over and ran them all up the cliffs until they were eventually forced to jump off?
Here's the thing as I see it. Humans through out time and all over the world have done some very disgusting things to take land and resources. IF we were to start correcting these wrongs, how far would we go back and where would it end? Who would then own what? Would Hawaii then be known as Menehune-ville?
But would we be saying the samething if for example china envades the U.S and takes part of the lands. I think we would be screaming from the top of our voices and approaching the U.N and the world for aid. I doubt we would be saying "thru history people conquered people so why set it right!"
But would we be saying the samething if for example china envades the U.S and takes part of the lands. I think we would be screaming from the top of our voices and approaching the U.N and the world for aid. I doubt we would be saying "thru history people conquered people so why set it right!"
So then, please answer these simple questions. IF we were to start correcting these wrongs, how far would we go back and where would it end? Who would then own what?
So then, please answer these simple questions. IF we were to start correcting these wrongs, how far would we go back and where would it end? Who would then own what?
But what you don't understand is its not the U.S responsibility to correct every wrong in the world or play policeman. But to return the land to Hawai'i. Then leave it upto other countries to sue for control of the lands. Personally i doubt there will be claims or protest from other polynesia peoples, because we would of heard about other claims. As for a ton of splinter groups. We had a civil war in our country because we all didn't agree with everything.
Further, How many peoples has the U.S conquered? Native American Indians, Native Hawai'ians, Alaska was bought. So who else?
So who else are we responsible for doing the right thing?
Further, How many peoples has the U.S conquered? Native American Indians, Native Hawai'ians, Alaska was bought. So who else?
So should the United States give all those lands back and who exactly would then own what? Also, IF you are going to make the United States do this, then wouldn't it be wrong to not make every country do the same thing?
So should the United States give all those lands back and who exactly would then own what? Also, IF you are going to make the United States do this, then wouldn't it be wrong to not make every country do the same thing?
Like i said we are only responsible for our actions. Not other countries. Further, what and who are we talking about? Not Native American Indians, because the U.S settled with the tribes, unless the U.S dosnt follow thru on its agreement, which will open the door to sue. Were only talking Hawai'i. We return it to government who owned it when we took it. And leave it to the peoples of Hawai'i to determine self direction.
As for other countries, thats not our responsibility. Were not the worlds police man.
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.
