Posts: 363
Threads: 1
Joined: Apr 2015
quote:
Originally posted by rainyjim
And why shoudln't they have been there kaimana?
Even if they weren't a descendant - if they were there then - if they had their own interests and that of theit descendants in mind should they not have had a say?
Are we even living in the same country?
Again all of the arguments I've made were coming from the viewpoint that the annexation was not legal and that Hawaii has been occupied since the "annexation".
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, according to international law.
Posts: 4,248
Threads: 96
Joined: Mar 2014
"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, according to international law."
--------
Even if the annexation was proved to not be legal, what about all of those people that were in Hawaii before that period? How about all of those "foreigners" that were given land grants by the king or bought land?
Posts: 363
Threads: 1
Joined: Apr 2015
Even if the annexation was proved to not be legal, what about all of those people that were in Hawaii before that period? How about all of those "foreigners" that were given land grants by the king or bought land?
Obviously if they had land titles or some sort of documentation from the Kingdom allowing them to live there they should retain all the rights they had during the Kingdoms governance.
Posts: 1,179
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2012
first and foremost.. the so called 'Hawaiians' you see today are NOT descendants of the first people to find and settle these islands.... so why do they always think they have entitlement to them NOW
400AD ....Marquesas Islanders settled Hawaii
1200AD .....Tahitian Islanders conquered the Marquesas Hawaiians (known to them as Menehune, meaning 'small in worth', not 'small in stature' ie not elf-like, they were real people enslaved, tortured, and killed off by the 2nd wave of settlers)
1778AD ..... Haole find the islands, eventually settling them, and NOT intentionally Killing off the Tahitian Hawaiians
the oldest Hawaiian Island that is still above water is over 30,000,000 years old (Kure)
Kauai about 4,500,000 years old
the Nene (goose) has been in Hawaii for 500,000 years
After Kamehameha's mass slaughters in taking over Maui, Oahu, the Big Island etc..... The so called HAWAIIAN KINGDOM lasted about 83 years total (1810-1893) ...and will NEVER truly exist again...
aloha
******************************************************************
save our indigenous and endemic Hawaiian Plants... learn about them, grow them, and plant them on your property, ....instead of all that invasive non-native garbage I see in most yards... aloha
******************************************************************
save our indigenous and endemic Hawaiian Plants... learn about them, grow them, and plant them on your property, ....instead of all that invasive non-native garbage I see in most yards... aloha
Posts: 1,440
Threads: 4
Joined: Sep 2014
Reality check.
Kaimana and dakine can weave the most far-fetched activist agenda on Punaweb all day long. At the end of the day it's still a bunch of hot air. Not exactly holding my breath waiting for the Kingdom's new laws of the land to replace that of our country and the State of Hawaii.
Posts: 11,020
Threads: 750
Joined: Sep 2012
The entire population of Hawaiian Nationals could have been the ones that were unregistered.
As are you HOTPE. Believing without any room for compromise what you want to believe.
OK, I'm willing to compromise.
Out of a total of 48,000 Hawaiian Nationals I'll meet Kaimana half way and agree that 50% were under the voting age or didn't vote, so that's 24,000. If all 8000 no votes for statehood were cast by Hawaiian Nationals (unlikely), that would be 16,000 yes votes and 8000 no votes.
Is that a reasonable assumption? A fair enough compromise? If not, is it at least more reasonable and fair than to assume not a single Hawaiian National voted in the statehood election?
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Posts: 10,222
Threads: 344
Joined: Apr 2009
Posted by dakine:
"Yes PM2 please check your reality, I suspect you've stroked yourself so much you're running dry. At least the tone of your posts these days suggest ever Five Finger Mary must be having a hard time pleasing you."
This is just way out of line. Dakine tends to get personal when facts don't back up his arguments, but this disgraceful.
ETA. I see dakine has now deleted his post. Not a problem, dakine, I have the screen shot.
Posts: 761
Threads: 40
Joined: Nov 2014
Mudslinging aside, I have a genuine curiosity about the election. Why did so few native Hawaiians (ethnic/nationals/whatever) vote "no" to statehood? 93% to 7% is a remarkable result. Regardless of the merits of joining the union, I would have guessed that the majority of natives would have voted "no", and more than a few haoles as well. I'm guessing some here have tutus they have talked to about this. Did they just not think it mattered?
Posts: 363
Threads: 1
Joined: Apr 2015
quote:
Originally posted by Lodestone
Mudslinging aside, I have a genuine curiosity about the election. Why did so few native Hawaiians (ethnic/nationals/whatever) vote "no" to statehood? 93% to 7% is a remarkable result. Regardless of the merits of joining the union, I would have guessed that the majority of natives would have voted "no", and more than a few haoles as well. I'm guessing some here have tutus they have talked to about this. Did they just not think it mattered?
There were only two options. Become a State or remain a territory. Statehood was the lesser of the two evils.
This is also an argument against the Statehood vote being valid. It's an international law that you have to give the option for self-governance.
Posts: 2,151
Threads: 73
Joined: Mar 2007
Give it a rest already! I ran out of popcorn hours ago.
