Posts: 7,734
Threads: 686
Joined: Jun 2011
"Hawaiian Citizenry(1890 Census)
Hawaiian Subjects- 48,107(Includes Kanaka Maoli and other ethnicity's that were citizens of the Kingdom)
Hawaii's Population in 1950
498,000
Most of the people in Hawaii at the time of the statehood vote were not Hawaiian Nationals. So really the US voted for statehood, not the nation of Hawaii."
According to wiki: Out of a total population of 600,000 in the islands and 155,000 registered voters, 140,000 votes were cast, the highest turnout ever in Hawaii. The vote showed approval rates of at least 93% by voters on all major islands (see adjacent figure for details). Of the approximately 140,000 votes cast, fewer than 8000 rejected the Admission Act of 1959.
8,000 is roughly 16% of 48,107
Posts: 363
Threads: 1
Joined: Apr 2015
quote:
Originally posted by PaulW
Not so fast, what about your ridiculous insinuation that US citizens were brought here to skew the vote?
Obviously not possible, 75% of the population of Hawaii was born in Hawaii, in 1959.
You asked us to check the stats so I did. Don't ignore - retract.
I think I need to explain that I'm coming from the view point that the Annexation was not legal and never truly happened. It continues to be an occupation. So anyone who came here afterward is not a citizen and should not be allowed to vote on issues involving Hawaii.
I'm not saying they were purposely brought there to skew the vote, but they did. As you can see after the "annexation" the population exploded with American immigrants.
Most of the time if you are born in a country you can claim it as your nationality but when a country is under occupation the rules are much different. So whether they were born here or not is irrelevant. All that matters is if they or their ancestors were Hawaiian Nationals.
Posts: 363
Threads: 1
Joined: Apr 2015
quote:
Originally posted by dakine
By way of trying to say that Hawaiians voted for statehood PaulW stated that 75% of the population of Hawaii was born in Hawaii, in 1959. But he does not clarify what the ethnic makeup of those people were, thus using half truths to bolster his position rather than recognizing the underlying point that it was not Hawaiians, not people with ties to pre-1893, and in essence a sham, as Kaimana and others have so patiently tried to point out.
What I don't understand is how does this relate to the essence of this thread? To the fact that the history that is so vehemently argued by people like PaulW, without any foundation in truth but argued none-the-less, is complete BS. If anyone actually listened to the talk this thread is about you would find that some historians believe the 'truth' you all are so stuck on is a sham! And maybe, just maybe, be willing to engage in a discussion of how that may or may not be true. But instead you engage in the same old BS you all have drummed in over and over. And in essence show yourselves as being far less educated, far less knowledgeable, and way more bigoted than you'll ever admit to. Tis a shame really.
I agree with you except that ethnicity doesn't matter in this case, only nationality. Only people who were Hawaiian Nationals matter in this, it just so happens that if you were Kanaka you were also a citizen of Hawaii, but there were other ethnicity's that were citizens also.
And I only say this because others will twist it to be a racial/ethnic issue, which it isn't.
Posts: 363
Threads: 1
Joined: Apr 2015
quote:
Originally posted by terracore
"Hawaiian Citizenry(1890 Census)
Hawaiian Subjects- 48,107(Includes Kanaka Maoli and other ethnicity's that were citizens of the Kingdom)
Hawaii's Population in 1950
498,000
Most of the people in Hawaii at the time of the statehood vote were not Hawaiian Nationals. So really the US voted for statehood, not the nation of Hawaii."
According to wiki: Out of a total population of 600,000 in the islands and 155,000 registered voters, 140,000 votes were cast, the highest turnout ever in Hawaii. The vote showed approval rates of at least 93% by voters on all major islands (see adjacent figure for details). Of the approximately 140,000 votes cast, fewer than 8000 rejected the Admission Act of 1959.
8,000 is roughly 16% of 48,107
Again, the only votes that should have been counted were those of Hawaiian Nationals, if Hawaii is being occupied and the annexation was not legal/never happened, which is the argument at hand.
Also the State vote was illegal in the fact that it never gave the option of independence.
Posts: 153
Threads: 7
Joined: Oct 2007
quote:
Posted by PunaMauka2: ...seekir, you attributing your theory to genetics or culture? Either way, behavioral profiling with such a broad ethnic brush doesn't seem very useful, at best.
Here's what I know:
1. Most Hawaiians are good with the notion of Kamehameha as hero figure in spite of his extraordinarily hawkish tendencies. He seems to have accomplished his aims through bloodshed, not statesmanship or diplomacy. I understand perfectly why a previous post had quotation marks around the word "unify." Perhaps "subjugate" would be a more appropriate word to describe the nature of his accomplishments? That being said, there are many military figures held in high esteem in European and U.S. history.
2. Polynesians seem to excel at contact sports such as rapid and conclusive termination of foolishly extended verbal debate.
Posts: 171
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2013
quote:
Originally posted by Kaimana
Hawaiian Citizenry(1890 Census)
Hawaiian Subjects- 48,107(Includes Kanaka Maoli and other ethnicity's that were citizens of the Kingdom)
Hawaii's Population in 1950
498,000
Most of the people in Hawaii at the time of the statehood vote were not Hawaiian Nationals. So really the US voted for statehood, not the nation of Hawaii.
Just wanted to see how accurate your claims...
(though i used the 1960 census, closer to the time of the vote on statehood)
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/do...961-02.pdf
(pages 30 and 31)
Indian 472
Japanese 203,455
Chinese 38,197
Filipino 60,070
White 202,230
Black 4,943
Others: 114,405
================
Total 607,969 with ~260k (42%) under voting age (p29)
= 350k adults of voting age.
So let's just take 42.7% out of the above number to try to get a representative adult population at the time.
Indian 270
Japanese 116,580
Chinese 21,887
Filipino 34,420
White 115,878
Black 2,832
Others: 65,554
In short, I don't see how you could import that many white ringers from the mainland to change the outcome of a 93% vote when whites made up only 33% of the voting age population at the time.
You can look at the other census if you prefer, but the numbers look worse.
1960 Census (page 31) 202,230 White -vs- 425,599 non white
1950 Census (page 31) 114,793 White -vs- 382,350 non white
1940 Census (page 31) 103,791 White -vs- 319,283 non white
Posts: 363
Threads: 1
Joined: Apr 2015
quote:
Originally posted by Mtviewdude
quote:
Originally posted by Kaimana
Hawaiian Citizenry(1890 Census)
Hawaiian Subjects- 48,107(Includes Kanaka Maoli and other ethnicity's that were citizens of the Kingdom)
Hawaii's Population in 1950
498,000
Most of the people in Hawaii at the time of the statehood vote were not Hawaiian Nationals. So really the US voted for statehood, not the nation of Hawaii.
Just wanted to see how accurate your claims...
(though i used the 1960 census, closer to the time of the vote on statehood)
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/do...961-02.pdf
(pages 30 and 31)
Indian 472
Japanese 203,455
Chinese 38,197
Filipino 60,070
White 202,230
Black 4,943
Others: 114,405
================
Total 607,969 with ~260k (42%) under voting age (p29)
= 350k adults of voting age.
So let's just take 42.7% out of the above number to try to get a representative adult population at the time.
Indian 270
Japanese 116,580
Chinese 21,887
Filipino 34,420
White 115,878
Black 2,832
Others: 65,554
In short, I don't see how you could import that many white ringers from the mainland to change the outcome of a 93% vote when whites made up only 33% of the voting age population at the time.
You can look at the other census if you prefer, but the numbers look worse.
1960 Census (page 31) 202,230 White -vs- 425,599 non white
1950 Census (page 31) 114,793 White -vs- 382,350 non white
1940 Census (page 31) 103,791 White -vs- 319,283 non white
Again it's not about ethnicity, it's about nationality. I don't know how many times I can say it.
Posts: 171
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2013
quote:
Again it's not about ethnicity, it's about nationality. I don't know how many times I can say it.
Mostly because what you are saying doesn't make sense to me.
You are saying only Hawaii nationals should have a say, ok, but then you quote 48,000 in 1890, 70 years before the vote took place. In those 70 years the 48,000 would have had children and their children children and their children's children's children. That 48,000 in 1890 could easily been 200k+ in 1959.
Unless you are trying to say that only those who were over 70 and born in Hawaii should have gotten to vote on statehood in 1959.
Does that also mean if you were born in hawaii in 1891 you are not a hawaii national, nor their children, nor their children's children.
The other thing, the sovereignty movement and all order Hawaii movements don't refer to Hawaii Nationals but Kanaka Maoli, which unless I am mistake is all about race.
Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
Its all about race! If you don't have x quantum of DNA you don't belong here! Hows that for aloha!
Posts: 363
Threads: 1
Joined: Apr 2015
quote:
Originally posted by Mtviewdude
Mostly because what you are saying doesn't make sense to me.
You are saying only Hawaii nationals should have a say, ok, but then you quote 48,000 in 1890, 70 years before the vote took place. In those 70 years the 48,000 would have had children and their children children and their children's children's children. That 48,000 in 1890 could easily been 200k+ in 1959.
Unless you are trying to say that only those who were over 70 and born in Hawaii should have gotten to vote on statehood in 1959.
Does that also mean if you were born in hawaii in 1891 you are not a hawaii national, nor their children, nor their children's children.
The other thing, the sovereignty movement and all order Hawaii movements don't refer to Hawaii Nationals but Kanaka Maoli, which unless I am mistake is all about race.
Even if we go by your numbers of 200k its still not even half the population. But usually in 50 years the population won't be 10 times higher, it's usually around 2 times, unless there is a massive immigration.
|
