sovereignty squatters arrested

[Kaimana]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 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.

---

Actually, this is my bad. My argument really only applied to his original statement. lol. I pretty much just skipped over the rest of his post after that. lol. After reading the whole post I can see where it could be relevant. As I said earlier, I have been getting more and more frustrated with people using invalid arguments and after reading his first statement I just responded to that.

[PunaMauka2]

"Actually, this is my bad. My argument really only applied to his original statement. lol. I pretty much just skipped over the rest of his post after that. lol. After reading the whole post I can see where it could be relevant. As I said earlier, I have been getting more and more frustrated with people using invalid arguments and after reading his first statement I just responded to that. "

Oh, I know how that goes. You're not alone, I've been there too when I have felt that way.

[Kaimana]

quote:

---

Originally posted by PunaMauka2

"Actually, this is my bad. My argument really only applied to his original statement. lol. I pretty much just skipped over the rest of his post after that. lol. After reading the whole post I can see where it could be relevant. As I said earlier, I have been getting more and more frustrated with people using invalid arguments and after reading his first statement I just responded to that. "

Oh, I know how that goes. You're not alone, I've been there too when I have felt that way.

---

I know you meant that as a jab at my arguments for sovereignty, but on almost every other issue I've seen you post on, I agree with you. It's kind of funny to me.

[PunaMauka2]

"I know you meant that as a jab at my arguments for sovereignty..."

Quite honestly, I wasn't thinking that. But now that you mention it... ha

[Mtviewdude]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 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.

---

Just to briefly touch on this. If the desire was to return to pre-contact status. Nations, governing structures, religion and culture then you would be absolutely correct (there would be no connection between the Kingdom and the State), I could respect that and probably make sense to more people.

However everything points to the opposite. The sovereignty movement is less about returning to a pre-contact state but reforming the Hawaiian Kingdom ignoring the parts they don't like.

The reinstated Hawaii Kingdom was a post contact construct, lead by a self-appointed king who lays claim to all territory that was conquered post contact, ignoring those other 2 peoples lived their prior to Kamehameha's conquest.

Let me give you a poor analogy.
1) A wife goes to a judge expressing a desire for things to go back to when she was single and to stop the mental and physical abuse by the husbands ---- Seems reasonable

2)A couple years later the wife gets married to a slightly less abusive man and wants to get a divorce because the new man is slightly abusive. She tells the judge she wants to go back to a time when she was she was free and wants to move in with her more abusive husband.

If there wasn't a push for the reinstanted Hawaiian Kingdom or not asking the other 2 conquered tribes if they wanted to be part of the process or a true desire to return somewhat to the pre-conact errors it would seem to be more legit.

The other issue i see, is that it doesn't appear the Hawaiians want to live like they did pre-contact. The village structure, government structuremm housing layuots is pretty western. Drive through any native hawaii subdivision, it looks like it could be on rhe Mainland. I am struggling to see how the native hawaiians are even affected.

[TomK]

Rob,

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

Depends how you define things, but even Iceland was invaded and occupied. During WWII the British took over and then handed Iceland over to the US a year or so later. Circumstances were different of course, at that time Iceland was independent but had strong ties to Denmark, a country that had been taken over by Germany. After the war, the occupation was quickly ended, but I think it's fair to say even Iceland has not escaped being taken away by an occupying force.

[kalakoa]

even Iceland has not escaped being taken away by an occupying force.

To me, the bigger difference is that Iceland doesn't have much to offer in terms of "exportable resource" and/or "strategic location". Compare to the "Middle East".

reinstated Hawaii Kingdom was a post contact construct, lead by a self-appointed king who lays claim to all territory that was conquered post contact, ignoring those other 2 peoples lived their prior

Sounds just like the conquest of what is now Mexico, the arrival of Columbus, etc. Didn't turn out well for those "peoples who lived there prior".