When will the party let the people choose their own future?

[jimboston]

Right. And the removal of the South China Sea islands from Chinese administration would hurt all the fishermen, rig workers and island constructors/caretakers who currently make their livings in the South China Sea. As well as all the military personnel who find employment guarding the islands from encroachment.

Economic security for the win, everyone gets to keep their prizes ^0^

It only hurts the invading Chinese people... it helps the other countries whose territory China is encroaching.

Right. And liberating Hawai'i would help the Hawai'ians whose lands America has encroached in their entirety.

Actually it would probably hurt most people in Hawaii.
Economically at least.

The only way it might help is psychologically.

Though you're still making an invalid distinction between "native" Hawaiians and "American" Hawaiians; solely based on race.

Please explain to me again why "native" Hawaiians should have more say on how they are governed than "American" Hawaiians.
Are they both not people?

Or as you so Asian Centric and racist, that you feel "native" Hawaiians should have more say because they are essentially and Asian people and therefore superior to Caucasians?

[jimboston]

I was summarizing other people's opinions, not my own.

Who's opinions? A minority of nutjobs?

Quite I was summarizing the opinions of yourself, rishaed, Bernie, muythaiguy etc.

You are just a Troll.

[mrswdk]

Actually it would probably hurt most people in Hawaii.
Economically at least.

The only way it might help is psychologically.

Though you're still making an invalid distinction between "native" Hawaiians and "American" Hawaiians; solely based on race.

Please explain to me again why "native" Hawaiians should have more say on how they are governed than "American" Hawaiians.
Are they both not people?

Or as you so Asian Centric and racist, that you feel "native" Hawaiians should have more say because they are essentially and Asian people and therefore superior to Caucasians?

So now I'm an anti-white xenophobe because I do not support the right of America to invade and pillage the rest of the world?

The white, pro-union population which is sympathetic to the US cause was imported precisely to dilute the resistance of the population. Quite why their say on the matter is relevant is beyond me.

[jimboston]

In summary, the denizens of Troll Forest are perfectly happy for America to occupy Hawai'i in violation of international law but not for China to occupy various parts of the South China Sea in violation of international law.

Who is claiming that America is occupying Hawaii?

Did you not read OP?

I did.

You only copied part of my quote.

The US is not CURRENTLY expanding its' boundaries and claiming land claimed by any other nation.
That is the "who" I am looking for.

Further... there's not even much of a "who" in Hawaii.

Did you read the OP???

... from your article.
"I would say the majority of Hawaiians don't agree with sovereignty and independence..." Then the person quoted goes on to give reasons he 'thinks' as to why native Hawaiians don't support sovereignty. He continues..." either they don't know their history or they think it's way too late to separate from the US," he says. "It's an uphill battle for the sovereignty groups."

Of course it's equally likely that they jus don't WANT to be independent from the US; because they know ultimately that being part of the US is good. In any case, even the article itself says that "the majority... don't agree with sovereignty and independence.".

So why are you arguing on behalf on "native" Hawaiians; for something they don't even want???

[jimboston]

Actually it would probably hurt most people in Hawaii.
Economically at least.

The only way it might help is psychologically.

Though you're still making an invalid distinction between "native" Hawaiians and "American" Hawaiians; solely based on race.

Please explain to me again why "native" Hawaiians should have more say on how they are governed than "American" Hawaiians.
Are they both not people?

Or as you so Asian Centric and racist, that you feel "native" Hawaiians should have more say because they are essentially and Asian people and therefore superior to Caucasians?

So now I'm an anti-white xenophobe because I do not support the right of America to invade and pillage the rest of the world?

The white, pro-union population which is sympathetic to the US cause was imported precisely to dilute the resistance of the population. Quite why their say on the matter is relevant is beyond me.

No... you are an anti-white xenophobe because you believe that a "pacific island/asian" person born in Hawaii should get to vote on independence; while a "caucasian" person born in Hawaii should not. The criteria you use to decide who should vote and who shouldn't is based entirely on race.

The white population was not imported by the US Gov't. They moved their of their own free will, the way all Americans can (and do) move around our country. I know you can't freely move around in China without Gov't permission... so you wouldn't understand how this works.

[mrswdk]

In summary, the denizens of Troll Forest are perfectly happy for America to occupy Hawai'i in violation of international law but not for China to occupy various parts of the South China Sea in violation of international law.

Who is claiming that America is occupying Hawaii?

Did you not read OP?

I did.

You only copied part of my quote.

The US is not CURRENTLY expanding its' boundaries and claiming land claimed by any other nation.
That is the "who" I am looking for.

I never said it is. Nice red herring.

"I would say the majority of Hawaiians don't agree with sovereignty and independence..." Then the person quoted goes on to give reasons he 'thinks' as to why native Hawaiians don't support sovereignty. He continues..." either they don't know their history or they think it's way too late to separate from the US," he says. "It's an uphill battle for the sovereignty groups."

i.e. they have been kept ignorant and intimidated into silence. That does not justify it.

[muy_thaiguy]

If they were "intimidated into silence", why is the guy so open about it then?

[jimboston]

"I would say the majority of Hawaiians don't agree with sovereignty and independence..." Then the person quoted goes on to give reasons he 'thinks' as to why native Hawaiians don't support sovereignty. He continues..." either they don't know their history or they think it's way too late to separate from the US," he says. "It's an uphill battle for the sovereignty groups."

i.e. they have been kept ignorant and intimidated into silence. That does not justify it.

... how have they been kept ignorant?

Is there some blockage of the Internet that the US Gov't is perpetrating on the people of Hawaii?
Are they stopping people from freely communicating; maybe watching everyone 1984/Big Brother style?

No. The unlike the Chinese, the US Gov't does not block free access to the Internet.
If anyone in the US is ignorant, it because they don't care to educate themselves, or choose to be ignorant.

The simple fact is that if the US tried to take over some country today, the way we did to Hawaii 117 years ago... it wouldn't work. The people of the US would be opposed to it. However, it didn't happen yesterday... it happened 117 years ago, and the USA was mirroring the norms of other major powers at the time.

Now... fast forward to today. We can't live in the past; we deal with the present. So... IMHO if the people of Hawaii (all people of Hawaii) want to become independent. Great. Go for it. The simple fact is that only a small minority want that; and it would likely be harmful to the economy of Hawaii.

Most natives of Hawaii realize that they are better off being part of the Republic that is the USA... instead of being ruled over by a Monarchy. Furthermore, and this is moot / speculation... if the USA didn't claim Hawaii, it's VERY LIKELY that Hawaii would be a territory of Japan today. Along with the Philippines.

Why don't you talk about how much American Blood was spilt freeing the Philippines from Japanese Oppression? My mother-in-law lived in the Philippines when Japan was in control. They were extremely happy when "American Joe" came in and chased the Japanese out.

[jimboston]

If they were "intimidated into silence", why is the guy so open about it then?

Stop your logic!

[mrswdk]

The simple fact is that if the US tried to take over some country today, the way we did to Hawaii 117 years ago... it wouldn't work.

Now we're getting somewhere. So you recognize that the US's annexation of Hawaii was and remains illegal?

The people of the US would be opposed to it. However, it didn't happen yesterday... it happened 117 years ago, and the USA was mirroring the norms of other major powers at the time.

2015 - US does what it wants in the Middle East and doesn't GAF what the haters say, Russia just annexed Crimea, etc. If China is just mirroring the playboy lifestyles of today's major powers, does that make it okay?

[jimboston]

The simple fact is that if the US tried to take over some country today, the way we did to Hawaii 117 years ago... it wouldn't work.

Now we're getting somewhere. So you recognize that the US's annexation of Hawaii was and remains illegal?

I recognize that by the STANDARDS OF TODAY we (generally, "we" human beings or even "we US Citizens) would not have approved of the way we treated with Hawaii. We also wouldn't have approved of what "we" did to the native Americans, what we did to Africans, nor even what we did to Japanese American citizens of residents in WW2.

I don't agree with the classification of "illegal", past or present, for a variety of reasons.

The legality or illegality of the actions of 117 years ago is moot.

I LIVE IN THE PRESENT. So if you want to repair the past, you;

1) Make every effort to avoid repeating those things that you are not proud of.

2) You look at the current situation on the ground as it is TODAY, and then you say "what is the best thing to do to repair that wrong and/or setup a situation whereby the most people will benefit / be happy.

-> The best thing to do with Hawaii today is to allow ALL people in Hawaii the opportunity to have open forum and conversation about the possibility of seceding / independence. Don'y have the vote tomorrow. Set it up for a year (or two) from now. Let people discuss / debate. Establish "rules" or a "process" whereby the US Gov't would agree to Independence; but would also retain lease rights to property (bases / scientific installations) where the Gov't has made investments (as I said in my first post). Proponents of Independence would have to have a basic Constitution and Gov't Framework ready... and there would be a timeline for transfer of power as well. Then... let the vote happen.

Based on the article posted. The Independence vote would likely fail. I'd be fine either way. I think Independence would be bad for the vast majority of ALL Hawaiian citizens... but I respect their right to make bad decisions.

BTW,,, I am not saying the US Fed. Gov't would do everything I suggest above; or elsewhere in this thread. I am saying that is what I think is the right thing to do.

The people of the US would be opposed to it. However, it didn't happen yesterday... it happened 117 years ago, and the USA was mirroring the norms of other major powers at the time.

2015 - US does what it wants in the Middle East and doesn't GAF what the haters say, Russia just annexed Crimea, etc. If China is just mirroring the playboy lifestyles of today's major powers, does that make it okay?

USA hasn't annexed any of the Middle East. Not comparable.

We (the USA) is saddled with the burden of dealing with the Middle East. We do all the work, and get all the blame. We should have stayed away from that part of the world. The root of most Middle East problems stem from their occupation by Britain, and france. European powers cause the problem pre-WW2... we (the USA) got saddled with it post-WW2.

Regardless, it's not comparable and another thread entirely.

[jimboston]

Actually it would probably hurt most people in Hawaii.
Economically at least.

The only way it might help is psychologically.

Though you're still making an invalid distinction between "native" Hawaiians and "American" Hawaiians; solely based on race.

Please explain to me again why "native" Hawaiians should have more say on how they are governed than "American" Hawaiians.
Are they both not people?

Or as you so Asian Centric and racist, that you feel "native" Hawaiians should have more say because they are essentially and Asian people and therefore superior to Caucasians?

So now I'm an anti-white xenophobe because I do not support the right of America to invade and pillage the rest of the world?

The white, pro-union population which is sympathetic to the US cause was imported precisely to dilute the resistance of the population. Quite why their say on the matter is relevant is beyond me.

No... you are an anti-white xenophobe because you believe that a "pacific island/asian" person born in Hawaii should get to vote on independence; while a "caucasian" person born in Hawaii should not. The criteria you use to decide who should vote and who shouldn't is based entirely on race.

The white population was not imported by the US Gov't. They moved their of their own free will, the way all Americans can (and do) move around our country. I know you can't freely move around in China without Gov't permission... so you wouldn't understand how this works.

NO reply to this MRS????