sovereignty squatters arrested

[Justin]

I for one would just like to thank everyone for all the well-articulated dialogue on this thread that - so far - has prevented it from devolving into ad hominem attacks as on some of the other threads. I really appreciate hearing the positions from everyone based on their varying real-life backgrounds and experiences.

I don't have near the background or experience of most of you here, so I don't feel that I can add much to this beyond my opinion on a couple of big picture items that, I believe, cut across all races, creeds, nationalities, etc.:

1) try as one might, you can never truly put yourself in someone else's shoes, as we all view issues through the lens of our own personal backgrounds, experiences, prejudices, etc.;
2) almost every single place on this planet is populated by people who took the land from those that came before, and trying to unwind all of that, particularly many generations after the fact, is - in my mind - an exercise in futility;
3) that being said, telling those who have been wronged to "get over it," even if coming from a good place (i.e., to start moving towards the future) will undoubtedly breed even more hostility;
4) the rule of law has to apply equally, and be applied equally by law enforcement, for society to perform at its best, so that people know what is expected of them and of everyone else;
5) education, and reasonable and respectful dialogue that comes along with it, should be a top priority for overcoming divisiveness and moving towards a truly integrated society that incorporates the best aspects of all of the various peoples (and their respective nationalities, practices, religions, etc.).

[Mtviewdude]

quote:

---

Just think about this scenario: you live in X country your whole life, your family has lived there as far back as anyone can remember, you family speaks the language of X and are all literate in this language, this language is the language of business and government. The language is an important part of your culture, and society, there are many newspapers, books, songs and religious tracts published in this language. Then newcomers from Y overthrow your government, make the language of Y the official language, and ban the use of language X in the schools and government. Your children and grandchildren are physically punished for speaking their own language in school and become so disillusioned, hurt and angry by their mistreatment in school that they reject education for the next several generations, only to have the descendants of the Y tribe tell them they are just a bunch of ignorant loser welfare bums who should just move to Las Yegas to be maids and busboys, and leave their beautiful island home to the Y tribe, who clearly deserve it since they are so hardworking and educated compared to the X tribe, for whom this is the only home they have ever known. How would that feel?

---

This is exactly what I mean, disingenuous. To show you what I mean let's just pick it apart line by line.

"you live in X country your whole life, your family has lived there as far back as anyone can remember"

I have to assume you are talking about Hawaii Island only, because the Hawaiian kingdom didn't exist or wouldn't have existed pre-contact. You are also not talking about the other islands because they could have easily remembered a time when they were not oppressed by Kamehameha, other the other previous occupants who were likely killed off. However, let's continue.


Conquered people have a particularly difficult time with education systems that are imposed on them by their conquerors.


Again, I have to assume the conquerors you are referring to isn't the Hawaiian Kingdom, who imposed their will on the other islands, adopted the English language,ran their governments in English, preferred to hire english speakers, opened English Schools and generally thought English was the future.

So the brutal oppression by the republic of Hawaii apparently consists of continuing the english language customs of the Hawaiian Kingdom, making english the primary language of schools (not banning other languages) and some school teachers who took it upon themselves to discipline (can't bring myself to call them beatings) for breaking the rules.

The education system is inherently steeped in the values, language and culture of the conquerors, and embracing education in that context feels like a betrayal of their own culture.


The cultural system that started being dismantled by the first King of Hawaii prior to any real western influence being established. However, I don't think these are the conquerors you are referring to.

The inequities of the post overthrow education system, and the Native American boarding schools, both have cast very long shadows on multiple generations of students. Both the Native Hawaiians and the Native Americans finally wrested a degree of control over their children's education in the recent past, and have seen a real upturn in educational participation at all levels.

This makes no sense, what was the real difference pre and post overthrow? What laws forced Hawaiian kids to go to school, what laws forced Hawaiian language underground and culture out of the home.

I don't understand why so many of you can live here, claim to love Hawaii, and yet are so dismissive and insulting about the Native Hawaiians and their pain at being disenfranchised and displaced here in their own place.

This is the other thing I can't stand. If you ever question the motives or accuracy it's always seem as disrespectful and insulting. What have I said that has been so insulting and disrespectful? What have I said that has been inaccurate (that I haven't retracted). Is the truth insulting?

How have the Native Hawaiians been disenfranchised, they have more freedom now living under the US then they ever did in the Hawaiian Kingdom. The religion and language has been restored more in the state then ever in the Hawaiian Kingdom. The common Hawaiian has more say in government, the ability to become part of government, has more input then at anytime in their history. So please tell me how the (non-alii) Hawaiians have been disenfranchised.

The attitude seems to be: tough luck, you lost, just get over it. They are Hawaiians, trying to live in Hawaii, no one else is entitled to tell them that their feelings of anger and pain aren't real,


No, it's more along the lines of get your facts straight and learn your history than get over it. No one is saying you can't have your feelings or anger your welcome to it. Just realize other people have made this place or home as well, and they do not have to bow to you.


and certainly not someone who chose move here from somewhere else and now wants to dismiss the concerns of the Native Hawaiians because those concerns are inconvenient for the new transplant.


Some someone who likes to through around the disrespect and insults you sure dish it out. Respect is a two way street, and it's hard to take you asking for respect seriously when you throw around the disrespects and insults. Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

I am not a transplant, though I got to had it to you. Trying to dismiss me in the same sentence you complain about being dismissed.

[Kaimana]

^Red Herring much?

[PunaMauka2]

kaimana asks: '^Red Herring much?"


I can't find any Red Herring argument in Mtviewdude's post. On the contrary, if anything he gives a point by point rebuttal challenging the premise of shockwave rider's statements, very much staying on issue. Having an opposing view on the premise of an argument and addressing it is not a Red Herring.

I am always happy to pass along information about logical fallacies, I think it benefits everyone by helping us stay closer to the truth.

-------------------------------------

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index...ed-herring


From link:

"Red Herring

Ignoratio elenchi

(also known as: beside the point, misdirection [form of], changing the subject, false emphasis, the Chewbacca defense, irrelevant conclusion, irrelevant thesis, smokescreen, clouding the issue, ignorance of refutation, judgmental language [form of])

Description: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue that to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

Logical Form:

Argument A is presented by person 1.

Person 2 introduces argument B.

Argument A is abandoned.

Example #1:

Mike: It is morally wrong to cheat on your spouse, why on earth would you have done that?

Ken: But what is morality exactly?

Mike: It’s a code of conduct shared by cultures.

Ken: But who creates this code?...

Explanation: Ken has successfully derailed this conversation off of his sexual digressions to the deep, existential, discussion on morality.

Example #2:

Billy: How could the universe be 6000 years old when we know the speed of light, the distance of astronomical objects (13+ billion light years away), and the fact that the light has reached us[1]?

Marty: 6000 years is not a firm number. The universe can be as old as about 10,000 years.

Billy: How do you figure that?...

Explanation: Marty has succeeded in avoiding the devastating question by introducing a new topic for debate... shifting the young-earth creation timeline where it does not necessarily coincide with the Bible.

Exception: Using a red herring to divert attention away from your opponent's red herring, might work, but do two wrongs make a right?

Tip: Impress your friends by telling them that there is no such fish species as a "red herring"; rather it refers to a particularly pungent fish—typically a herring but not always—that has been strongly cured in brine and/or heavily smoked.

Variation: Using judgmental language is using insulting, compromising or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment, and take the attention off the real argument.

[1] The most distant object yet confirmed in the universe is a self-destructing star that exploded 13.1 billion light years from Earth. The object is a gamma-ray burst (GRB) – the brightest type of stellar explosion. The burst is dubbed GRB 090423 for the date of its discovery."

[Kaimana]

The argument is about what the US has done, not what came before it. He's using Hawaii's past as a justification to what the US did.

[PunaMauka2]

If one were completely irrelevant to the other and Mtviewdude was intentionally trying to change the subject to abandon the argument, you might have a point. But that's not the case. He is disagreeing with the premise of shockwave rider's statement which is entirely within reason to endeavor to do so. We don't get to draw neat little boundaries around our argument which exclude other information or points of view which are not advantageous to our own argument. That would be a form of Cherry Picking...

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index...ry-picking

---------------
You said: "He's using Hawaii's past as a justification to what the US did."

You do realize this same line of reasoning could hypothetically be turned around to something like:

"He's using The State of Hawaii's past as a justification to what the reinstated Kingdom is trying to do."

[Kaimana]

No it couldn't. What the Kingdom is trying to do is directly related to what the US/State of Hawaii did. In the original argument what the US did had nothing to do with Hawaii's past, but he was using it as his argument for what the US did.


Again the original argument was that what the US did to Hawaii was wrong and immoral(granted, morals are relative but I think we can agree that there are somethings that almost every culture would deem immoral). He then presented the fact that Hawaii wouldn't have even been united had it not been for the US and that Hawaiians themselves had committed atrocities against themselves to get to that point. But those instances have nothing to do with whether what the US did was right or legal for that matter. If the US had taken over because of some atrocities, it would have been relevant. But that is not why they took over.

I'm just getting annoyed with all the invalid arguments for why the US take over was just. "You're better off" "Kamehameha did the same thing but in a more savage way." "You'd be taken over by China or Russia if not." None of those are valid arguments and yet they keep getting used over and over again.

[PunaMauka2]

"No it couldn't. What the Kingdom is trying to do is directly related to what the US/State of Hawaii did. In the original argument what the US did had nothing to do with Hawaii's past, but he was using it as his argument for what the US did."

This is getting really convoluted. Situations don't have to be carbon copies of each other to be relevant to each other. Complex interrelationships are everywhere. And there are multiple ways of looking at things which can hold truth. I think you are trying to limit what qualifies as admissible here based on your own personal point of view, opinion, and perhaps your own agenda. In any case, there was no Red Herring.

[Rob Tucker]

Boy, am I glad the Spanish didn't get their mitts on these islands. The Spanish were waging holy terror through the southern hemisphere and parts north.

The only modern territory that I have been able to identify as never being taken away from someone sometime is Iceland.

[flyingsurfer]

The closest Hawaii had to royalty around the time of Hawaii becoming a state was Duke Kahanmoku. He was very much for statehood.