Posts: 2,377
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
Kaimana,
Am I to interpret your evasion of the question as an attempt in denial of the facts pertinent to the circumstances involved during the Coup D'état?
You want to quickly point your finger at the United States as the guilty party using hearsay and misinterpretations of a 1993 apology with regard to the circumstances that allowed the overthrow to happen but you don't want to discuss the facts in roles governing the circumstances. You don't want to discuss why the presence of the Marines was not only valid but part of an actual previous request under the protectorate policy by the monarchy under such circumstances. You don't want to discuss why the Queen waited until the Naval ship left for duty rotation to begin proceedings to change the constitution.
Posts: 363
Threads: 1
Joined: Apr 2015
quote:
Originally posted by Wao nahele kane
Kaimana,
"Do you even understand what a protectorate means? It has nothing to Do with our sovereignty."
Instead of attempting to assume you know what I'm thinking. Try to pay attention. Nothing was mentioned about sovereignty. Did I mention Sovereignty? That is a fabrication of your making. I fully comprehend what a protectorate is.
The subject is the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and the matter presented is simple. What was the protectorate policy with regard to the U.S. Marines role in protecting the Kingdom according to the policies set forth in the Protectorate Policy?
Get it? Obviously they were there to engage a foreign invader but what other circumstances were outlined within the policy and what was their role under such circumstances? DO you know what the policy was? Do you know the details of their requested role?
That is the question I am asking you. Was one of the roles of the Marines to protect the monarchy against insurrection and violence according to the requested protection by the Monarchy or was it something along those lines but not to engage?
Share with us the details of the requested protection.
None of that has anything to do with my argument.
When you address the issue of where a congressional act got the power to annex a sovereign nation let me know.
And to answer your question, no I don't know the specifics but the Blount report and the Apology Resolution both seem to think they were in the wrong.
Posts: 3,212
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2009
Wow - lots going on here today. Some quick answers to some questions:
In the 1880's there were approximately 39,000 Native Hawaiians out of a total population of ~80,000.
In 1960 there were ~75,000 people of Native Hawaiian descent out of a population of ~622,000.
Today, there are approximately 400,000 people of Native Hawaiian descent out of a population of 1.4 million.
http://www.hawaiianencyclopedia.com/popu...tatist.asp
At all these times, they would be in the minority as a voting block. A referendum was, and still is, unlikely to lead to any changes given the demographics involved.
Posts: 363
Threads: 1
Joined: Apr 2015
No we wouldn't have been the minority in the 1880's. Your numbers are including people who weren't citizens of the kingdom and wouldn't have had a vote. Unless this is not correct or they allowed Aliens to vote.
Hawaiian Kingdom population in 1890
The last census done in the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1890 listed the entire population at 89,990. Here follows the breakdown by nationality:
Hawaiian nationals 48,107
Aboriginals (pure/part) 40,622
Natural born Hawaiian nationals* 7,495
Portuguese 4,117
Chinese and Japanese 1,701
Other White foreigners 1,617
Other nationalities 60
Aliens 41,873
United States nationals 1,928
Chinese nationals 15,301
Japanese nationals 12,360
Portuguese nationals 8,602
British nationals 1,344
German nationals 1,034
French nationals 70
Polynesians 588
Other nationalities 60
Posts: 3,212
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2009
Kaimana - It's not an absolute that another country will occupy us.
Rob Tucker - Just out of curiosity, what would stop them?
Theoretically, the US is the most likely answer. This might take the form of arms sales and support (along the lines of Israel) or perhaps an extended (forced) lease of military bases (along the lines Guantamano Bay in Cuba - which we gave conditional independence to after, yep, The Spanish American War)
As many have said, the US military interest in Hawaii is undeniable, especially with the rise of China. However, how to protect this interest could take several forms theoretically other than the current arrangement.
Posts: 2,244
Threads: 396
Joined: Nov 2011
Welcome back, ironyak. Missed your opinion in this thread. Trust all is well.
Very much enjoying the respectful part of this discussion. Better than most of recent days. All points raised are very interesting.
Mahalo. Carry on. [
] (I'm watching Olelo TV, Channel 53)
JMO.
Posts: 363
Threads: 1
Joined: Apr 2015
Wao nahele kane do you have anything with info on the protectorate details? The only thing I could find on it is on wiki and it only says that one ship was to be in the harbor at all times, but doesn't go into specifics. Thanks in advance.
Posts: 1,440
Threads: 4
Joined: Sep 2014
just checking in on how the daily International Court proceedings are going here on Punaweb courtesy of our aspiring political activist attorney. are we a kingdom yet? i like move into my neighbors house already.
Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
Can I have the Doris Duke house over in Oahu?
If we can come to an agreement on that I think I could sign off on the sovereignty thing.
Thanks.
Posts: 2,244
Threads: 396
Joined: Nov 2011
[:0] You know! (BBM)
"Shangri La":
http://shangrilahawaii.org/
(*Did you notice the Islamic association/connotation? Not that it matters...That estate is DIVINE!)
JMO.
