Author: yuan_zcen

Hawaii 'independence' was suppressed [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2008-8-26 10:47:27 |Display all floors
Originally posted by unimane at 2008-8-22 13:01
Except, of course, being the differences in how the respective groups are treated today. Native Americans (and Hawaiians) have equal rights and protections. Native Americans also have autonomous ru ...


Then why Hawaiians still want independence, disregarding such 'equal rights' they are endowed, according to your material?

I clarify that I am against the 'independence force'. Just as Interesting said, it would be a terrifying idea. I post here only to waken you up from your ideal dream, that the people will tend to be satisfied and peaceful as long as they get what they deserved, even more.

Tibet, as well as Xinnjiang, has got prosperity in the new era of China. Who are making troubles are only a slim group. Somebody will never be satisfied, such as the protesters in Hawaiians.

I hope what happened in Hawaii will help you to realize what is happening in China today. Don't seize a plait. You have sources, we have sources.
[url=http://www.chinahdtv.org/promotionlink.php?key=24856e9c0fb449bb9366b526cbeb40dc][img]http://www.chinahdtv.org/pic/prolink.png[/img][/url]

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2008-8-26 11:00:30 |Display all floors
Kodama,

Actually, if you check the so-called Bayonet Constitution from the first revolt, it only disenfranchised Asians. Hawaiians were less than half the population and saw their actual impact on politics rise.

Moving on, I think you're very confused and still refuse to actually read what I have written and read it plainly. I said the US had legal right to annex the country. I did not say that the actual vote itself was legal--I'm not well-schooled in late 19th century Congressional procedure and know no one who is. You are confusing two issues.

I will make an example to make it clear: I have a legal right to Cherokee tribal membership. There is paperwork I must do, however. Say that I don't do that paperwork properly but still get membership (perhaps due to clerical error). Do I still have a right to membership? Absolutely: I had that right prior to filling out paperwork and it doesn't disappear. Is my membership valid? Probably not: I did not properly apply.

So, did the US have the legal right to annex Hawaii? Yes: Hawaii petitioned for annexation. Did the US undertake the procedure properly? Neither of us know: we're not scholars of 19th century Congressional rules.

Next: you seem once more confused about what I said in regard to Hawaiian commerce.

The US did not try to dominate Hawaiian commerce by annexing it. The US already dominated Hawaiian commerce because it was the closest country with a demand for Hawaiian goods. It did not need to annex the country to achieve or even reinforce dominance. In fact, annexation was a net loss for the US government because there were tariffs on Hawaiian goods at the time, netting handsome payments for the Federales.

I think that the major failing in your thought process, and why you say that I'm being non-neutral, is that you don't bracket large questions into their smaller component questions. Instead you simply take the long story arc--for example, that the US expands to become one of the world's largest countries--and call it imperialism without really analyzing (or perhaps, allowing yourself to analyze) the particular events which make up that story.
"Justice prevails... evil justice."

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2008-8-26 11:13:32 |Display all floors
Yuan,

Most don't. In fact, most don't even care. When you poll the ones who are pro-independence, you will find that they tend to be racists. Native Hawaiians, for example, usually have a "Kill Haole Day" in high school (look it up) where they harass and assault non-Hawaiian students. This has led to incidents in which non-Hawaiians have been severely injured.

This is basically the first flowering of  the racism that infects not just Native Hawaiians but pretty much all native groups. Part of the reason I would never join the Cherokee tribe in an official manner is that most "real Cherokees" simply hate everyone else--from whites to African Americans to Asians to you-name-it--and I don't care to associate with it.
"Justice prevails... evil justice."

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2008-8-26 11:17:22 |Display all floors
Originally posted by jordan_c_fan at 2008-8-22 13:03


The importance of Hawaii to China parallels exactly what Ossetia is to Russia.  Ossetia is the birth place of the founder of the Soviet Union and modern Russia Joseph Stalin while mo ...


You are fearless, only fear that the world in peace...
[url=http://www.chinahdtv.org/promotionlink.php?key=24856e9c0fb449bb9366b526cbeb40dc][img]http://www.chinahdtv.org/pic/prolink.png[/img][/url]

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2008-8-26 11:20:12 |Display all floors
Originally posted by interesting at 2008-8-26 11:13
Yuan,

Most don't. In fact, most don't even care. When you poll the ones who are pro-independence, you will find that they tend to be racists. Native Hawaiians, for example, usually have a " ...


Agree, the same as 4.13 riot in Tibet.
[url=http://www.chinahdtv.org/promotionlink.php?key=24856e9c0fb449bb9366b526cbeb40dc][img]http://www.chinahdtv.org/pic/prolink.png[/img][/url]

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2008-8-26 11:39:31 |Display all floors
Yuan,

Absolutely the same; my only disagreement with anyone here about the riot is that I don't think the DL had anything to do with it. I think it was just a race riot, they happen a lot when there is seething ethnic tensions and the like.
"Justice prevails... evil justice."

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2008-8-26 14:51:37 |Display all floors
Originally posted by interesting at 2008-8-26 11:00
Kodama,

Actually, if you check the so-called Bayonet Constitution from the first revolt, it only disenfranchised Asians. Hawaiians were less than half the population and saw their actual impact on politics rise.


The constitution did disenfranchise most Hawaiians by putting even greater limitations on the general right to vote. There were already some limitations but the Bayonet Constitution drastically increased the limitations. It was intended to greatly increase the power of white oligarchs and I'm pretty sure you understand that.

Moving on, I think you're very confused and still refuse to actually read what I have written and read it plainly. I said the US had legal right to annex the country. I did not say that the actual vote itself was legal--I'm not well-schooled in late 19th century Congressional procedure and know no one who is. You are confusing two issues.


The U.S. had a legal to annex the country, if they approved an annexation treaty by a two-thirds vote. Instead the passed a piece of legislation by simple majority. The U.S. didn't have a legal right to annex the country by passing a resolution. However, this is not the matter of dispute. The government which was overthrown would not have pushed for annexation.

The US did not try to dominate Hawaiian commerce by annexing it. The US already dominated Hawaiian commerce because it was the closest country with a demand for Hawaiian goods.


I look and it appears you were describing the motive of the coup-plotters, not the United States, my mistake.

It did not need to annex the country to achieve or even reinforce dominance. In fact, annexation was a net loss for the US government because there were tariffs on Hawaiian goods at the time, netting handsome payments for the Federales.


I actually said they didn't need to annex in order to dominate the trade. However, there's another angle to this in that American business would benefit considerably from Hawaiian annexation and by extension many government officials but then again they also saw a nice piece of real estate which the navy wanted all to itself.

I think that the major failing in your thought process, and why you say that I'm being non-neutral, is that you don't bracket large questions into their smaller component questions. Instead you simply take the long story arc--for example, that the US expands to become one of the world's largest countries--and call it imperialism without really analyzing (or perhaps, allowing yourself to analyze) the particular events which make up that story.


Actually, you're completely wrong, not surprising. In fact I look at both the large question and the smaller component questions. It's not uncommon for imperialist interests and business interests to converge, in fact, that's classic imperialism. The British East and West India companies were the pioneers of British imperialism. Also if you want to explain to me how the huge territorial concessions coaxed out of Mexico following that war or the purchase of large swathes of territory was not classic imperial expansionism feel free. In the mean time do you mind explaining how it is that whenever the U.S. government has a prime piece of territory that someone doesn't want to relinquish there's alway some American immigrants there willing to take it over and hand it to the U.S.? Funny how the Texas Revolution was fought primarily by Americans who saw their business interests threatened by Mexico's government and then successfully asserted their independence with the abundant assistance of the United States. Just like the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom was orchestrated primarily by Americans who had their business interests threatened and received assistance from the United States in doing so.

You may see leftist historical revisionism, but I for one see a pattern that gets repeated all too often in American history.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.