Over the summer, the US Department of the Interior held a series of hearings inviting Native Hawaiians to comment on the formation of a federally recognized nation. The hearings confirmed what many Hawaiians already knew: opposing camps have formed in the debate over Hawaiian sovereignty. One side views federal recognition as a pragmatic alternative to the status quo. The other side, at first thought to be a marginal segment of the movement, seeks the full independence that Hawai‘i had in the nineteenth century. Surprisingly, after decades in which the federal recognition advocates represented the mainstream, the voices for full independence seized the spotlight. The overwhelming response at the hearings to the question of federal recognition was “a‘ole”: no.
Very few people who supported federal recognition at the hearings—“only a handful,” according to the Honolulu Civil Beat—made their voices heard. One of the most prominent proponents was Native Hawaiian Roll Commissioner Na‘alehu Anthony, who said he did not want to pass the struggle on to his son after watching three generations fight for Hawaiian rights. The written testimony that followed shows a different balance. According to analysis by University of Hawai‘i law professor Williamson Chang, 65 percent of comments were in favor of federal recognition and 35 percent in favor of independence. (The Department of the Interior has not yet completed its own review.)
These numbers are misleading. The Roll Commission compiled a list of 125,000 ostensible supporters out of the roughly 500,000 Native Hawaiians living in the United States. But two-thirds of those names were from a 2004 list gathered with the less specific purpose of establishing a “Native Hawaiian governing body,” which is broad enough to mean different things to different people.
Mainstream media coverage was misleading too. By focusing on the tone rather than the content of the comments at the hearings, commentators missed the real story, which was that a major shift in Hawaiian political will had occurred. In a community known for its divisiveness, the emergence of the independence movement as a viable force is quite stunning. Under the radar, a new view of Hawaiian history is taking hold.
Unified in 1810 by King Kamehameha I, Hawai‘i was recognized internationally as an independent country in 1843. Fifty years later, the Kingdom of Hawai‘i had treaties with nearly all the sovereign states in existence, including five with the United States. In 1893, Queen Lili‘uokalani was overthrown by sugar businessmen backed by a company of US Marines. President Grover Cleveland called this unauthorized intervention an “act of war,” withdrew the proposed annexation treaty and agreed to reinstate Lili‘uokalani. A standoff between the president and Congress over the question of annexation prevented any action for five years. When William McKinley took office in 1897, he attempted to pass a second treaty but failed. A year later, he and the annexationists in Congress decided, in the words of Congressman Thomas Ball of Texas, “to do unlawfully that which can not be done lawfully.” In 1898 they annexed Hawai‘i via joint resolution.
Nearly 100 years later, in 1993, Congress issued a formal apology to the Hawaiian people for the overthrow. But it is the subsequent annexation by resolution that lies at the heart of the current drama. Acceptance led to support for a semi-autonomous nation within a nation; non-acceptance spurred efforts to restore an independent government.
The issue of recognition has been circulating for more than a decade. The so-called “Akaka Bill,” named after its sponsor, the Native Hawaiian Senator Daniel Akaka, languished in Congress for twelve years before expiring with Akaka’s retirement and the death of senior Senator Daniel Inouye in 2012. The Department of the Interior subsequently proposed a set of “rulemaking” changes that would allow Hawaiians to join the more than 500 native nations already in existence.
For the most part, these rules suit the federal recognition camp just fine. But those in the independence movement counter that a “domestic” resolution of this sort violates international law. Just because the United States has not yet admitted to a prolonged military occupation, they argue, does not mean that Hawai‘i is not under one. This stance was buoyed by the mention of Hawai‘i for the first time as a state under “alleged” occupation in the 2013 War Report, a catalog of contemporary international conflicts published by the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. (The War Report takes no stance on the veracity of the allegation.) The International Criminal Court is giving “consideration” to complaints against state judges for administering foreign law in an occupied state. And Office of Hawaiian Affairs CEO Kamana‘opono Crabbe sent a letter to US Secretary of State John Kerry in May, asking for advisement on possible breaches of international law stemming from the OHA’s support for federal recognition. (Some of OHA’s trustees later rescinded the letter.) Even the US State Department has removed its article on the annexation of Hawai‘i “pending review.”
At its root, the debate stems from divergent beliefs about law and power. Independence advocates view international law (and specifically the law of occupation) as safeguards against the continuation of an illegally constituted, and essentially occupying, government—the State of Hawai‘i. They call not for decolonization but deoccupation, as was done in the Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) upon the breakup of the Soviet Union. Some federal recognition supporters are beneficiaries of Hawaiian “entitlements” such as the Federal Hawaiian Home Lands homesteading program; others are US military veterans who argue that the United States would never allow a withdrawal regardless of Hawai‘i’s legal status internationally. These views and the paths they imply appear to be mutually exclusive.
Because of the controversy surrounding the hearings, an aha, or convention, on Hawaiian governance was pushed back to April 2015. The delay could allow tempers to cool a bit, but supporters do not want it postponed indefinitely. Deeper reflection on Hawai‘i’s widely misunderstood history may be the only route to reconciliation, and the best path toward restoring dignity to a people who have been denied it for far too long.
Any chance of you chaps holding a referendum on this one? I must admit, I was mildly surprised to hear that the US Government seems to think (both in the past and present) that Congress has the right to declare the USA owns other countries.
I'm all for giving Hawaii the choice to secede and form their own state (kind of like we did for Puerto Rico).
My gut tells me that if they had the option they'd probably prefer to stay a US state, but they deserve the freedom to make that decision all the same.
BlaxicanX wrote: I'm all for giving Hawaii the choice to secede and form their own state (kind of like we did for Puerto Rico).
My gut tells me that if they had the option they'd probably prefer to stay a US state, but they deserve the freedom to make that decision all the same.
NO.
Any state that attempts to secede should be crushed utterly.
Your analogy to PR is incredibly misplaced. PR was never a US state.
Any state that attempts to secede should be crushed utterly.
What about the strand of thought under which they're more of an occupied territory than a state? I mean, one would think that they'd have had to have joined to be able to secede.
BlaxicanX wrote: I'm all for giving Hawaii the choice to secede and form their own state (kind of like we did for Puerto Rico).
My gut tells me that if they had the option they'd probably prefer to stay a US state, but they deserve the freedom to make that decision all the same.
NO.
Any state that attempts to secede should be crushed utterly.
Your analogy to PR is incredibly misplaced. PR was never a US state.
Also, this.
PR gets all the perks of being a US state without the taxes and other bs.
BlaxicanX wrote: I'm all for giving Hawaii the choice to secede and form their own state (kind of like we did for Puerto Rico).
My gut tells me that if they had the option they'd probably prefer to stay a US state, but they deserve the freedom to make that decision all the same.
NO.
Any state that attempts to secede should be crushed utterly.
Your analogy to PR is incredibly misplaced. PR was never a US state.
Can you explain why without resorting to a slippery-slope fallacy?
Any state that attempts to secede should be crushed utterly.
What about the strand of thought under which they're more of an occupied territory than a state? I mean, one would think that they'd have had to have joined to be able to secede.
Nonsense and people espousing such should be put against the wall and shot with Springfield 1861 rifles. Catch the date and you'll see why this argument why already made and decided in the case of Lee vs. Grant (writ of cereori denied).
BlaxicanX wrote: I'm all for giving Hawaii the choice to secede and form their own state (kind of like we did for Puerto Rico).
My gut tells me that if they had the option they'd probably prefer to stay a US state, but they deserve the freedom to make that decision all the same.
NO.
Any state that attempts to secede should be crushed utterly.
Your analogy to PR is incredibly misplaced. PR was never a US state.
Why does it matter?
edit- Toss a slippery slope fallacy at me and I'm coming to Texas and beating you. Fair warning.
Are you ignorant of something called THE CIVIL WAR? Its like people are taught nothing but how to get thrown out of chairs by cops go ragey in school these days.
Frazzled wrote: Are you ignorant of something called THE CIVIL WAR? Its like people are taught nothing but how to get thrown out of chairs by cops go ragey in school these days.
Classic Frazz.
The Civil War occurred because states involved attempted to leave the Union without the Union's permission. That's not an applicable scenario to what's being discussed in this thread.
Hawaii is a State with full Federal representation and recognition. I'm not sure that can be called 'occupation' even if we acquired that territory somewhat underhandedly in the first place. While I get get classifying it as such from a legal stand point, the practical reality on the ground would seem miles away from that. If we were talking about Puerto Rico or Guam maybe.
I was unaware that Native Hawaiians didn't have their own Nation though. Kind of have mixed feelings about how those deals have worked out for other groups...
I don't know if Hawaii has Referendums but the independence movement would lose anyway. Native Hawaiians only make up just under 7% of Hawaaii's population..
Hey don't blame me for today;s poor education system, where kids aren't taught to pledge allegiance to Dixie like I was. We were lernet more gooder!
If passed, would that make every action of Obama void as he was no longer born in the US? ? ?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Hawaii is a State with full Federal representation and recognition. I'm not sure that can be called 'occupation' even if we acquired that territory somewhat underhandedly in the first place. While I get get classifying it as such from a legal stand point, the practical reality on the ground would seem miles away from that. If we were talking about Puerto Rico or Guam maybe.
I was unaware that Native Hawaiians didn't have their own Nation though. Kind of have mixed feelings about how those deals have worked out for other groups...
I don't know if Hawaii has Referendums but the independence movement would lose anyway. Native Hawaiians only make up just under 7% of Hawaaii's population..
I thought 94% of Hawaii was owned by China now, with 5% owned by Japan?
Frazzled wrote: Are you ignorant of something called THE CIVIL WAR? Its like people are taught nothing but how to get thrown out of chairs by cops go ragey in school these days.
Classic Frazz.
The Civil War occurred because states involved attempted to leave the Union without the Union's permission. That's not an applicable scenario to what's being discussed in this thread.
Where is the part where "the Union" is giving permission? Its not even legally possible absent an Amendment to the Constitution. Like the Mob, once you join, you join for life, capiche?
Frazzled wrote: I thought 94% of Hawaii was owned by China now, with 5% owned by Japan?
In the 40's and 50s yes, Asians Americans were the largest Demographic in Hawaii by a huge margin. While it's still the largest single ethnic Catagory, in the last 50 years its dropped from 60% to 25%. Hawaii now sports the largest 'Two or More' (mixed race) Ethnic Demographic in the US
Frazzled wrote: I thought 94% of Hawaii was owned by China now, with 5% owned by Japan?
In the 40's and 50s yes, Asians Americans were the largest Demographic in Hawaii by a huge margin. While it's still the largest single ethnic Catagory, in the last 50 years its dropped from 60% to 25%. Hawaii now sports the largest 'Two or More' (mixed race) Ethnic Demographic in the US
So its like Minnesota then, the largest Heinz 57 crowd evah...
All I have to say is, "you can have my Molokini diving when you pry it from my cold dead hands!" -U.S.Grant
I'd probably feel differently in their shoes, as the gap between native Hawaiians and others in the State is pretty big, but calling them occupied is a bit much.
Hawaiians are citizens, they vote, they pay taxes, they are represented in Congress, and they govern themselves. They're a state like any other, and while the territory was gained through nefarious means, we straight up conquered the southwest, so there's precedent.
At the end of the day, I think they'll end up like most separatist movements, and find out what most Americans know: money and power talk.
BlaxicanX wrote: I'm all for giving Hawaii the choice to secede and form their own state (kind of like we did for Puerto Rico).
My gut tells me that if they had the option they'd probably prefer to stay a US state, but they deserve the freedom to make that decision all the same.
NO.
Any state that attempts to secede should be crushed utterly.
Your analogy to PR is incredibly misplaced. PR was never a US state.
Personally, I am somewhat shocked to see that statement coming from a Texan.
This is another relevant issue. Pretty much everything west of Kansas was acquired... Less than honestly, from an International perspective. Not to mention all this stuff happened over 100 years ago.
I find "I prefer to have my own country" a rather slip shot excuse to demand independence. I mean who if they could wouldn't want their own country? Is there some specific complaint beyond "my great great grand father got cheated"? Native Hawaii's have fully recognized rights. Of all the states in the US, Hawaii has the fewest issues with institutional racism and discrimination (likely owing to it's very mixed race demographics). There is no law in place that denies Native Hawaiians any freedoms or legal recourse. Given the time that has passed since annexation, and the lack of any apparent marginalization, a quest for independence from a full State where they don't even come close to being a plurality seems petty and short sighted.
BlaxicanX wrote: I'm all for giving Hawaii the choice to secede and form their own state (kind of like we did for Puerto Rico).
My gut tells me that if they had the option they'd probably prefer to stay a US state, but they deserve the freedom to make that decision all the same.
NO.
Any state that attempts to secede should be crushed utterly.
Your analogy to PR is incredibly misplaced. PR was never a US state.
Personally, I am somewhat shocked to see that statement coming from a Texan.
Thats why its coming from a Texan.
Or as my wife would say "Been there, done that got a belt buckle."
kronk wrote: PR gets all the perks of being a US state without the taxes and other bs.
Well... not to be nitpicky, but Puerto Rico doesn't have a representative in Congress or the Senate; which means they are US citizens without a congressional vote. Additionally, they do pay some federal taxes so it's not totally tax free either. So, not to be pedantic, but they don't have all the perks of a state without the taxes; on either count.
I think that within my lifetime there will be a vote for statehood for Puerto Rico.
This is another relevant issue. Pretty much everything west of Kansas was acquired... Less than honestly, from an International perspective. Not to mention all this stuff happened over 100 years ago.
I find "I prefer to have my own country" a rather slip shot excuse to demand independence. I mean who if they could wouldn't want their own country? Is there some specific complaint beyond "my great great grand father got cheated"? Native Hawaii's have fully recognized rights. Of all the states in the US, Hawaii has the fewest issues with institutional racism and discrimination (likely owing to it's very mixed race demographics). There is no law in place that denies Native Hawaiians any freedoms or legal recourse. Given the time that has passed since annexation, and the lack of any apparent marginalization, a quest for independence from a full State where they don't even come close to being a plurality seems petty and short sighted.
So are there currently no federally recognized Hawaiian Native American tribes? I never really thought is native islanders as "tribes" before, but I can't really think of a good reason why they wouldn't be either...
I don't know if PR will get statehood in my lifetime, but most certainly the question of PR's status will come to a head. The "lets become a state" movement in PR has been gaining steady steam. In 2012, a Referendum was held; 56% voted to reject PR's current 'Commonwealth' Status, and 61% voted to attain Statehood. There will be another Referendum next year.
However, Congress I think is likely to block PR's first few attempts at Statehood. Gallup did a poll in the late 90's, and only 30% of Americans thought that PR should be granted State hood. 25% voted it remain a territory. 28% that it be granted independence.
Admitting PR would also mean taking a House seat away from another state, which no state is going to want to happen (and both political parties will likely oppose), and it will put 102 seats in the Senate. While that might seem small it would radically upset the power balance of the Federal Government (there's a reason Hawaii and Alaska got admitted around the same time to maintain a balance between the parties in Congress).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: So are there currently no federally recognized Hawaiian Native American tribes? I never really thought is native islanders as "tribes" before, but I can't really think of a good reason why they wouldn't be either...
Apparently not. Under US Law, they're not even classified as Native Americans... Thought part of me considers that a good thing...
LordofHats wrote: I don't know if PR will get statehood in my lifetime, but most certainly the question of PR's status will come to a head. The "lets become a state" movement in PR has been gaining steady steam. In 2012, a Referendum was held; 56% voted to reject PR's current 'Commonwealth' Status, and 61% voted to attain Statehood. There will be another Referendum next year.
However, Congress I think is likely to block PR's first few attempts at Statehood. Gallup did a poll in the late 90's, and only 30% of Americans thought that PR should be granted State hood. 25% voted it remain a territory. 28% that it be granted independence.
Admitting PR would also mean taking a House seat away from another state, which no state is going to want to happen (and both political parties will likely oppose), and it will put 102 seats in the Senate. While that might seem small it would radically upset the power balance of the Federal Government (there's a reason Hawaii and Alaska got admitted around the same time to maintain a balance between the parties in Congress).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: So are there currently no federally recognized Hawaiian Native American tribes? I never really thought is native islanders as "tribes" before, but I can't really think of a good reason why they wouldn't be either...
Apparently not. Under US Law, they're not even classified as Native Americans... Thought part of me considers that a good thing...
Is that Gallup poll still viable though? It is a poll that is now close to 20 years old, whereas the PR referendum is 3 years old.
It's the only poll I know of so I have no other reference source unfortunately. The numbers could have gotten better for PR statehood, or worse. As the question becomes more immediate, there will most certainly be more.
This isn't going to be a popular opinion but... just let them go if thats what they want, fine, what do we lose?
I honestly imagine very little as we could easily negotiate that we keep our military bases. And the tourism trade there isn't going anywhere, so you need a passport now, big whup.
Infact the next time Texas or any other state starts whining about wanting out, show them the door. I honestly feel like a majority of our problems in goverment stems from the fact we have too many monkeys throwing gak at each other to accomplish anything meaningful and just mabe splittng into smaller countries with an american mindset might change things for the better.
It would be interesting for Hawaii, that's for sure. While I'm all for people determining their own fate, I think they'd miss the gargantuan amount of revenue that being part of the US, and that having extensive federal US facilities & jobs, brings, not to mention how much it would suck if tourists had to all of a sudden need passports...
I can understand and sympathize with the injustices done to the Hawaiians over time, but I don't see how an independent Hawaii would be better off than they are now.
It'd be interesting to see exactly how many Hawaiians would truly like to be independent, rather than just toying with the idea and groaning about tourists.
Sounds like a pretty similar situation as with the Soviet Union/Russian Empire and the Baltic states.
The best thing would be a referendum, altough you might argue that in such a case, the amount of American immigrants vs native Hawaians would skew the outcome.
LordofHats wrote: I don't know if PR will get statehood in my lifetime, but most certainly the question of PR's status will come to a head. The "lets become a state" movement in PR has been gaining steady steam. In 2012, a Referendum was held; 56% voted to reject PR's current 'Commonwealth' Status, and 61% voted to attain Statehood. There will be another Referendum next year.
However, Congress I think is likely to block PR's first few attempts at Statehood. Gallup did a poll in the late 90's, and only 30% of Americans thought that PR should be granted State hood. 25% voted it remain a territory. 28% that it be granted independence.
Admitting PR would also mean taking a House seat away from another state, which no state is going to want to happen (and both political parties will likely oppose), and it will put 102 seats in the Senate. While that might seem small it would radically upset the power balance of the Federal Government (there's a reason Hawaii and Alaska got admitted around the same time to maintain a balance between the parties in Congress).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: So are there currently no federally recognized Hawaiian Native American tribes? I never really thought is native islanders as "tribes" before, but I can't really think of a good reason why they wouldn't be either...
Apparently not. Under US Law, they're not even classified as Native Americans... Thought part of me considers that a good thing...
I was down there once during a statehood election. People on both sides were down right ugly and there were a few killings over the matter.
Iron_Captain wrote: Sounds like a pretty similar situation as with the Soviet Union/Russian Empire and the Baltic states.
Prior to 1960 I'd definitely agree. But for the last 70 years Hawaii has had full statehood. We don't have concentration camps, segregation, or any bs Jim crow laws that prevent Native Hawaiians from participating in democratic political processes and I'm reluctant to to support a move for independence that amounts to "I have everything everyone else has but I think it would be better if I was independent cause reasons." They're not the former Soviet Bloc, or the Basque, or the Kurds, or even the Irish. If there was serious issues with marginalization or denied rights I'd be more sympathetic but I'm not finding anything to that effect. As a territory I think there'd be an argument too, as for me US Territories can only be legitimately held so long as the majority of population in the territory is okay with it, but Hawaii isn't a territory anymore.
The best thing would be a referendum, altough you might argue that in such a case, the amount of American immigrants vs native Hawaians would skew the outcome.
This is the other issue. As dirty as the past may be Native Hawaiians are a very small fraction of the State's population. I don't think letting less than 7% of the population dictate this issue is any better than annexing Hawaii in the first place. I suppose that forms a kind of catch 22 situation. Want to take over someone elses country? Just annex it and move in a bunch of your guys (well, in the case of Hawaii, import a metric gak ton of Asians)! But after 120 years the morality of it all seems to become a moot point. It doesn't really benefit anyone anymore.
I think the Independence movement vastly overestimates the UN there as well. The UN is never gonna back such a move. That kind of precedent would lead to virtually every state on the planet being dissolved cause I don't think any of us really got our current borders by being particularly nice in the past.
I was down there once during a statehood election. People on both sides were down right ugly and there were a few killings over the matter.
Yeah. PR has a pretty vocal independence movement as well, and it too has been growing over the years (just at a slower rate than the Statehood movement). Ultimately I'd back them if the US Government chooses to jerk PR around and deny a serious request for Statehood backed by popular support. We gave up classical Empire after WWII. We can't legitimately see ourselves as leaders of the free world while denying our Territories (which do not have full Constitutional rights or protections) some degree of self determination. We're the United States of America. Not the United States (and some Islands we're rather fond of) of America.
Ouze wrote: I think that within my lifetime there will be a vote for statehood for Puerto Rico.
There already has been and it passed back on November 6, 2012. If you mean a vote by Congress, then I'm not sure when that will happen. With Puerto Rico having so many problems it may be a while.
Back on topic, there is no Constitutional process through which a State may be removed from the Union. Permission is not relevant to the issue.
Peter Wiggin wrote: There's a precedent in US history. You don't get to leave the Union. Period.
The precedent is that you don't get to leave the Union unilaterally.
Per SCOTUS in Texas v. White:
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
Prior to 1960 I'd definitely agree. But for the last 70 years Hawaii has had full statehood. We don't have concentration camps, segregation, or any bs Jim crow laws that prevent Native Hawaiians from participating in democratic political processes and I'm reluctant to to support a move for independence that amounts to "I have everything everyone else has but I think it would be better if I was independent cause reasons."
That's interesting. Would you say then that the Scottish should have been denied their independence referendum, and that the Catalonians should be denied one?
Bromsy wrote: I am on the side of 'reap the benefits of statehood for the better part of a century so you are stuck with us' camp.
Yeah, losing roughly 90% of the indigenous population in the first few decades of US sovereignty was quite the reaping.
That's kind of obfuscating the issue. Today, and as long as you or I have been alive, Hawaii is a full fledged state, with full legal rights for all of its citizens. Furthermore, they are consistently on the list of states which receive a larger portion of the federal budget than they contribute.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. I'm given to understand that the naval military advantage controlling Hawaii gave the US made the investment worthwhile, at one point, but I'm not sure how important naval superiority remains in the modern era. (By not sure, I mean 'I don't know,' not 'I am claiming it is not important.)
I guess, on the one hand, if a vote would show a clear consensus, I think it seems correct to grant independence. (Although I think the number of non-natives who are legal state residents, even native residents, would be high enough to sway any vote unequivocally in favor of statehood, so it's kind of a moot point.) On the other hand, the US has established, with bloody precedent, that the Union is, as the saying goes, indivisible.
They would never want to be their own nation, that would mean the end of its membership in the first world, and third world status within a decade. Individuals and leadership and the elite would no doubt benefit from it, pocketing whatever income the country might have, but in general it will be a demographic and economic catastrophe for the Hawaiian islands.
If we have to give up Hawaii, let's take something else.
Hey Scotland! Are your needs being met with your current relationship? Do you like to travel?
We have Disney World!
We have problems with England, but we're largely governed ourselves. It'd take more than Disney World to make us turn 'Murcan!
The main reason is that the Scots value their second amendment too much to risk it in the name of such a merge.
A well regulated Chef Division, being necessary to the taste buds of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Haggis, shall not be infringed.
Iron_Captain wrote: Sounds like a pretty similar situation as with the Soviet Union/Russian Empire and the Baltic states.
Prior to 1960 I'd definitely agree. But for the last 70 years Hawaii has had full statehood. We don't have concentration camps, segregation, or any bs Jim crow laws that prevent Native Hawaiians from participating in democratic political processes and I'm reluctant to to support a move for independence that amounts to "I have everything everyone else has but I think it would be better if I was independent cause reasons." They're not the former Soviet Bloc, or the Basque, or the Kurds, or even the Irish. If there was serious issues with marginalization or denied rights I'd be more sympathetic but I'm not finding anything to that effect. As a territory I think there'd be an argument too, as for me US Territories can only be legitimately held so long as the majority of population in the territory is okay with it, but Hawaii isn't a territory anymore.
Sure, Balts, like everyone else, suffered repression under the early days of the Soviet Union, but they were always full citizens with equal rights from the beginning. They were full Republics in the Soviet Union and had their own local governments made up of ethnic Balts. They also participated in the highest levels of federal government. All chairmen of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian. On the other hand, how many Hawaians have been governor of Hawaii? And what about cultural rights? How many Hawaians still speak the Hawaian language? The US rule has practically destroyed Hawaian language and culture, and only 10% of the population is still actually Hawaian. You can argue all you want, but Russian occupation of the Baltics has been far less destructive for them than US occupation of Hawaii has been for the Hawaian people.
Of course, the similarity depends on what the Hawaian people want. If they actually want independence, then the situation is similar, but if they are fine with being part of the US, then it is not.
The best thing would be a referendum, altough you might argue that in such a case, the amount of American immigrants vs native Hawaians would skew the outcome.
This is the other issue. As dirty as the past may be Native Hawaiians are a very small fraction of the State's population. I don't think letting less than 7% of the population dictate this issue is any better than annexing Hawaii in the first place. I suppose that forms a kind of catch 22 situation. Want to take over someone elses country? Just annex it and move in a bunch of your guys (well, in the case of Hawaii, import a metric gak ton of Asians)! But after 120 years the morality of it all seems to become a moot point. It doesn't really benefit anyone anymore.
I think the Independence movement vastly overestimates the UN there as well. The UN is never gonna back such a move. That kind of precedent would lead to virtually every state on the planet being dissolved cause I don't think any of us really got our current borders by being particularly nice in the past.
That is a very valid point. Most states, including the US and Russia, got their territory by conquering and subjugating other peoples, then settling their lands with your own people. The problem is that the US is very hawkish about other countries doing the same things the US does. If the US did not constantly say to be all for freedom, democracy and self-determination, it would be a good argument. Now it makes the US look hypocritical. The US likes to pretend it is better than other nations (leader of "the free world" and all). If they really are, they should give Hawaians and other subjugated peoples a free choice. If not, they should stop their charade.
Iron_Captain wrote: Sounds like a pretty similar situation as with the Soviet Union/Russian Empire and the Baltic states.
Prior to 1960 I'd definitely agree. But for the last 70 years Hawaii has had full statehood. We don't have concentration camps, segregation, or any bs Jim crow laws that prevent Native Hawaiians from participating in democratic political processes and I'm reluctant to to support a move for independence that amounts to "I have everything everyone else has but I think it would be better if I was independent cause reasons." They're not the former Soviet Bloc, or the Basque, or the Kurds, or even the Irish. If there was serious issues with marginalization or denied rights I'd be more sympathetic but I'm not finding anything to that effect. As a territory I think there'd be an argument too, as for me US Territories can only be legitimately held so long as the majority of population in the territory is okay with it, but Hawaii isn't a territory anymore.
Sure, Balts, like everyone else, suffered repression under the early days of the Soviet Union, but they were always full citizens with equal rights from the beginning. They were full Republics in the Soviet Union and had their own local governments made up of ethnic Balts. They also participated in the highest levels of federal government. All chairmen of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian. On the other hand, how many Hawaians have been governor of Hawaii?
And what about cultural rights? How many Hawaians still speak the Hawaian language? The US rule has practically destroyed Hawaian language and culture, and only 10% of the population is still actually Hawaian. You can argue all you want, but Russian occupation of the Baltics has been far less destructive for them than US occupation of Hawaii has been for the Hawaian people.
Of course, the similarity depends on what the Hawaian people want. If they actually want independence, then the situation is similar, but if they are fine with being part of the US, then it is not.
The best thing would be a referendum, altough you might argue that in such a case, the amount of American immigrants vs native Hawaians would skew the outcome.
This is the other issue. As dirty as the past may be Native Hawaiians are a very small fraction of the State's population. I don't think letting less than 7% of the population dictate this issue is any better than annexing Hawaii in the first place. I suppose that forms a kind of catch 22 situation. Want to take over someone elses country? Just annex it and move in a bunch of your guys (well, in the case of Hawaii, import a metric gak ton of Asians)! But after 120 years the morality of it all seems to become a moot point. It doesn't really benefit anyone anymore.
I think the Independence movement vastly overestimates the UN there as well. The UN is never gonna back such a move. That kind of precedent would lead to virtually every state on the planet being dissolved cause I don't think any of us really got our current borders by being particularly nice in the past.
That is a very valid point. Most states, including the US and Russia, got their territory by conquering and subjugating other peoples, then settling their lands with your own people.
The problem is that the US is very hawkish about other countries doing the same things the US does. If the US did not constantly say to be all for freedom, democracy and self-determination, it would be a good argument. Now it makes the US look hypocritical. The US likes to pretend it is better than other nations (leader of "the free world" and all). If they really are, they should give Hawaians and other subjugated peoples a free choice. If not, they should stop their charade.
BlaxicanX wrote: I'm all for giving Hawaii the choice to secede and form their own state (kind of like we did for Puerto Rico).
When did Puerto Rico secede?
They had the option to secede a few years ago- they voted to remain a Commonwealth.
i would vote to commence Arclight missions minutely if they tried until they understood the error of their ways.
there is no constitutional method to secede. it would need a Constitutional Amendment, not some half ass local vote.
Frazz, I've been looking at the House of Commons website (British government)
and there's no mention of a constitutional method that allowed a certain group of colonists to break away in 1776.
If Hawaii broke away from the USA, you guys could hardly take the moral high ground on this
You seem to forget that we've already had an attempt at this. It resulted in 620,000 dead Americans.
Afterwards the USSC rules that secession was not allowed by the Constitution. Even the silly fellows in Texas who keep claiming that they can break away whenever they want. Nope.
Prior to 1960 I'd definitely agree. But for the last 70 years Hawaii has had full statehood. We don't have concentration camps, segregation, or any bs Jim crow laws that prevent Native Hawaiians from participating in democratic political processes and I'm reluctant to to support a move for independence that amounts to "I have everything everyone else has but I think it would be better if I was independent cause reasons."
That's interesting. Would you say then that the Scottish should have been denied their independence referendum, and that the Catalonians should be denied one?
I'd need more information. This kind of thing is definitely a case by case basis for me. The ramifications and consequences of ideology or unilateral action are too severe. I don't know jack about the Catalonians. For the Scotts I do remember the recent thread we had about the state of the United Kingdom, as well as the Scottish push for independence, but am uncertain where I would fall. I just don't know enough about how Scotland fits into UK politics to make a personal decision on the matter. Some of what I've heard makes it sound like the Scotts are just complaining about things that aren't real or that effect the English as well (London being a center focus of UK politics), and at other times I've read things that do sound like the Scottish are being marginalized (that thing about only the English getting to vote on certain things?). I'm just not knowledgeable enough to make a determination.
I do definitely feel though that no country can run itself or survive if it indulges every single bid of independence any minority group makes. It's nice to think that "if they want to go their own way, we should let them" and that might even be the morally just thing to do... But I just can't fathom any state operating that way and lasting for very long. It's a practice of self-destruction. Too a degree, reality dictates that just because you want to be your own country doesn't mean my country has to indulge you.
EDIT: And to be fair, as I've read more into this, the Hawaiian Independence movement is not purely about Full Independence. The majority of the groups I can find recognize that Hawaii is political and economically integrated into the United States. What most of them advocates is not full Sovereignty but rather a downgrade from Statehood to a kind of special Territory status where they'd still be part of the United States but have more independence from the Federal Government (and would cease to be the 'State of Hawaii').
I agree that technically the Civil War settled the issue, but this is human nature, this is democracy.
The founding fathers told London to take a hike. Who's to say in future that the American people won't decide to tear up the constitution and start again? Or individual states might go it alone?
You can't predict this.
It's unlikely that Hawaii would ever break away, but it's equally nonsense to say that it could never happen.
The founders were smart people, who knew better than anybody that the future is not set in stone, hence the genius of the 2/3rds clause to repeal or add an amendment.
Prior to 1960 I'd definitely agree. But for the last 70 years Hawaii has had full statehood. We don't have concentration camps, segregation, or any bs Jim crow laws that prevent Native Hawaiians from participating in democratic political processes and I'm reluctant to to support a move for independence that amounts to "I have everything everyone else has but I think it would be better if I was independent cause reasons."
That's interesting. Would you say then that the Scottish should have been denied their independence referendum, and that the Catalonians should be denied one?
I'd need more information. This kind of thing is definitely a case by case basis for me. The ramifications and consequences of ideology or unilateral action are too severe. I don't know jack about the Catalonians. For the Scotts I do remember the recent thread we had about the state of the United Kingdom, as well as the Scottish push for independence, but am uncertain where I would fall. I just don't know enough about how Scotland fits into UK politics to make a personal decision on the matter. Some of what I've heard makes it sound like the Scotts are just complaining about things that aren't real or that effect the English as well (London being a center focus of UK politics), and at other times I've read things that do sound like the Scottish are being marginalized (that thing about only the English getting to vote on certain things?). I'm just not knowledgeable enough to make a determination.
I do definitely feel though that no country can run itself or survive if it indulges every single bid of independence any minority group makes. It's nice to think that "if they want to go their own way, we should let them" and that might even be the morally just thing to do... But I just can't fathom any state operating that way and lasting for very long. It's a practice of self-destruction. Too a degree, reality dictates that just because you want to be your own country doesn't mean my country has to indulge you.
Well let me tell you this as a supporter and member of the Scottish independence movement.
I like Britain, the history, the culture etc etc, and I'll miss Britain when we leave. We're not oppressed in the sense that we're living in a dictatorship. We're a rich, 1st world country with a high standard of living and all the associated democratic rights etc etc
So why do I want to break away from the UK? For the same reason that people leave their home when their old enough and have their own lives.
It's as simple as that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: I have explained to them the problems of seceding when the US army has a division here.
"we secede!"
Mr. M1 tank says "nope!"
And then Hawaii suddenly remembers it has a vast Russian or Chinese population and they appeal for help.
They can try to break away, but unless they have a very powerful Nation-state backer, they will not manage it. The federal government would simply not allow it without it coming to blows. There is too much at stake and the threat of balkanization if one US state managed it.
Alternatively, they could go the political route and get 2/3 Constitutional Majority, but I think everyone would see that path would lead to the dissolution of the Union into (arguably more) regionalism.
Easy E wrote: They can try to break away, but unless they have a very powerful Nation-state backer, they will not manage it. The federal government would simply not allow it without it coming to blows. There is too much at stake and the threat of balkanization if one US state managed it.
Alternatively, they could go the political route and get 2/3 Constitutional Majority, but I think everyone would see that path would lead to the dissolution of the Union into (arguably more) regionalism.
But if large democratic movements sprung up and a majority wanted to break away, what could the USA do?
Invade to stop a peaceful democratic movement with majority support?
Easy E wrote: They can try to break away, but unless they have a very powerful Nation-state backer, they will not manage it. The federal government would simply not allow it without it coming to blows. There is too much at stake and the threat of balkanization if one US state managed it.
Alternatively, they could go the political route and get 2/3 Constitutional Majority, but I think everyone would see that path would lead to the dissolution of the Union into (arguably more) regionalism.
But if large democratic movements sprung up and a majority wanted to break away, what could the USA do?
Invade to stop a peaceful democratic movement with majority support?
Posts the text of the Supreme Court ruling that says "states can't leave without the consent of Congress" only to be followed by a page of "states can never leave, it's already decided".
Moments like these are the reason I treausure this place.
d-usa wrote: Posts the text of the Supreme Court ruling that says "states can't leave without the consent of Congress" only to be followed by a page of "states can never leave, it's already decided".
Moments like these are the reason I treausure this place.
d-usa wrote: Posts the text of the Supreme Court ruling that says "states can't leave without the consent of Congress" only to be followed by a page of "states can never leave, it's already decided".
Moments like these are the reason I treausure this place.
Too be fair, while that was the decision made by the Supreme Court (that Congress can consent to allow a state to leave), I'd actually question if that would be legal. Congress' powers don't really cover this (nothing in the Constitution does). Can Congress exercise a power that is not even touched in Constitution? Especially since White v Texas wasn't explicitly about Secession (it was about whether actions the actions taken by a secessionist government were binding), if this were ever to come up as a serious issue another Supreme Court case to specifically determine this would be prudent. Whether or not Congress can allow a state to leave the Union feels too much like a political question to me, and political questions are definitely outside the jurisdiction of the judiciary.
d-usa wrote: Posts the text of the Supreme Court ruling that says "states can't leave without the consent of Congress" only to be followed by a page of "states can never leave, it's already decided".
Moments like these are the reason I treausure this place.
Too be fair, while that was the decision made by the Supreme Court (that Congress can consent to allow a state to leave), I'd actually question if that would be legal. Congress' powers don't really cover this (nothing in the Constitution does). Can Congress exercise a power that is not even touched in Constitution? Especially since White v Texas wasn't explicitly about Secession (it was about whether actions the actions taken by a secessionist government were binding), if this were ever to come up as a serious issue another Supreme Court case to specifically determine this would be prudent. Whether or not Congress can allow a state to leave the Union feels too much like a political question to me, and political questions are definitely outside the jurisdiction of the judiciary.
But the legality of Texas seceding was important in that case since SCOTUS wouldn't have jurisdiction otherwise. If Texas wasn't a state during that time, then they wouldn't be able to hear a case that involves a suit against one of the states. So before they could adress the actual matter of the suit they had to first determine if there was even standing: was Texas still a state in the union despite unilaterally seceding. The ruling on that was that since Texas tried to secede without Federal permission it remained a state of the Union.
It doesn't clearly rule that congress has the power to approve a state to secede, but it also doesn't close the door with a "you can never secede" ruling either. It narrowly ruled that unilateral secession isn't allowed, and left the broader question of "can you ever secede" open.
Edit: I'm confusing myself with what I am typing and I think we are saying some of the same thing, so I'm going to tl;dr my point:
While SCOTUS closed the door on unilateral secession, they didn't close the door on all forms of secession.
It seems to me that if Hawaii did not voluntarily enter the union they are in no way legally or morally bound to remain a member. However I think it is a moot point. It is unlikely that it would even be possible to arrange a fair plebiscite on the matter now, and even if done the vote would most likely be to remain a member.
Kilkrazy wrote: It seems to me that if Hawaii did not voluntarily enter the union they are in no way legally or morally bound to remain a member. However I think it is a moot point. It is unlikely that it would even be possible to arrange a fair plebiscite on the matter now, and even if done the vote would most likely be to remain a member.
The State of Hawaii willingly entered the Union, at the behest of the voters. Hawaii's annexation as a territory isn't really all that different then most other US states west of the Louisiana Purchase. They were all originally incorporated at gun/cannon point as territories. Eventually the citizens of the territories decided they wanted to be states, voted for it, and Congress passed bills that enacted it. Hawaii is no different. The citizens of the territory wished to become a state, and did.
I'm not a constitutional scholar, but the actual legal nature of secession would instigate a constitutional crisis. It's simply not addressed in any manner worth citing as applicable precedent.
What the court might decide, if and when this occurs, is if there is a legislative path to secession, or if a constitutional amendment would be required.
This isn't idle chatter: Hawaii seceding would have a huge impact on the million or so US citizens that reside that, that suddenly would either need to move, or stop being US citizens. Every single person in Hawaii would have standing to sue, as their rights and privileges change dramatically.
Prior to 1960 I'd definitely agree. But for the last 70 years Hawaii has had full statehood. We don't have concentration camps, segregation, or any bs Jim crow laws that prevent Native Hawaiians from participating in democratic political processes and I'm reluctant to to support a move for independence that amounts to "I have everything everyone else has but I think it would be better if I was independent cause reasons."
That's interesting. Would you say then that the Scottish should have been denied their independence referendum, and that the Catalonians should be denied one?
If I were the UK and Spanish governments, that is certainly the stance I'd take. Yes. But I am not, and US states are not historical provinces in Europe.
In America we don't do secessionist referendums. We're not a bunch of Russians.
Iron_Captain wrote: Sure, Balts, like everyone else, suffered repression under the early days of the Soviet Union, but they were always full citizens with equal rights from the beginning. The US rule has practically destroyed Hawaian language and culture, and only 10% of the population is still actually Hawaian. You can argue all you want, but Russian occupation of the Baltics has been far less destructive for them than US occupation of Hawaii has been for the Hawaian people.
You should smoke less hashish in the Netherlands.
Local government in the baltic states? In the Soviet Union, the Kremlin ruled supreme. Estonians could not even sing their traditional songs in the squares of the capital. They did not rule themself with "ethnic local governments".
Nor would it have been possible in the soviet system, which may have had the rethorics of a federal state, but certainly functioned as an unitary state.
If the Hawaiians now are 10% of the population, it is not because 90% has been killed, but because they were overwhelmed by immigration. The dutch are only 79% of the population in Netherlands in 2015, but are still much more numerous than when they were 97% in 1900 and only counted 4 millions, as compared to the 13,4 millions they are now.
In comparison the baltic countries, actually had their demographics changed by such massive rates as 25% and 30% of the populations deported to siberian Gulags, in the cases of Estonia and Latvia.
Iron_Captain wrote: Sure, Balts, like everyone else, suffered repression under the early days of the Soviet Union, but they were always full citizens with equal rights from the beginning. The US rule has practically destroyed Hawaian language and culture, and only 10% of the population is still actually Hawaian. You can argue all you want, but Russian occupation of the Baltics has been far less destructive for them than US occupation of Hawaii has been for the Hawaian people.
You should smoke less hashish in the Netherlands.
Local government in the baltic states? In the Soviet Union, the Kremlin ruled supreme. Estonians could not even sing their traditional songs in the squares of the capital. They did not rule themself with "ethnic local governments".
Nor would it have been possible in the soviet system, which may have had the rethorics of a federal state, but certainly functioned as an unitary state.
If the Hawaiians now are 10% of the population, it is not because 90% has been killed, but because they were overwhelmed by immigration. The dutch are only 79% of the population in Netherlands in 2015, but are still much more numerous than when they were 97% in 1900 and only counted 4 millions, as compared to the 13,4 millions they are now.
In comparison the baltic countries, actually had their demographics changed by such massive rates as 25% and 30% of the populations deported to siberian Gulags, in the cases of Estonia and Latvia.
Article 2 of the Soviet Constitution:
the sovereign rights of Union Republics shall be safeguarded by the USSR According to article 72 the same constitution, each republic also had the right to leave the Union (something Hawai or states in most other federations have not). However, until the popular pressure in 1991, no republic ever considered this, mostly because these republics were under the leadership of local communists, who knew that their career would be over if they were to become independent. The Estonian Communist Party, which ruled the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic was made up for about half of ethnic Estonians. In Latvia the situation was about the same, in Lithuania, the Party was mostly Lithuanian. The general secretary and thus leader, was always an ethnic Estonian/Latvian/Lithuanian. Now of course anything could be overturned by the Soviet government in Moscow, but overall, the local parties had a fair degree of autonomy. Baltic languages were not at all outlawed, and were freely taught in Baltic schools, nor were Estonian songs outlawed, quite the contrary, as the continuation and growth of the Estonian Song Festival shows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_Song_Festival (the exception may have been overtly nationalist, anti-soviet or anti-communist songs, ofc).
Now I don't want to justify the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states, it still was an invasion and annexation, but the Balts under Soviet rule had a hell of a lot more freedom than the Hawaians did under American rule for a long time. Even now, I wonder how many schools in Hawaii teach in the Hawaian language? American annexation of Hawaii has practically destroyed traditional Hawaian culture and language, and turned Hawaians into a minority in their own country. Soviet annexation of the Baltics, while brutal under Stalin, was still nowhere near that destructive to the Baltic peoples, languages and cultures.
Also, I would like to see some source for the number of 25% to 30% of the population being deported, as this is not supported by the census, nor by any other information I read. Just taking Estonia here as an example, between the 1939 and 1941 census, there is a drop of 9.7%, and then in 195, there is an increase of 17.6%. Immigration from other parts of the USSR accounts for 13.2% population increase, which still gives an increase of 4% in the ethnic Estonian population between 1941 and 1959, which would be hardly possible if 30% just had been deported, no? In the Baltics, like in all other parts of the Soviet Union, a huge lot of people got deported and were murdered during Stalin's purges, but no way that is up to 30% of the entire population. Belarus had 25% of its population killed in WW2, and it still has not recovered from that today. There is no way the Baltics could just lose 30% without any notable effects today.
No, the Soviets were utterly oppressive and an extension of Russian Imperialist psychology. Stalin was a monster and he purposefully murdered millions of his own citizens via starvation. The Soviets suppressed MANY of the local Slavic cultures, as well as the culture of Catholocism. THey tried DAMN hard to crush the national identities of most of their occupied states, thankfully they were mostly unsuccessful.
Don't let your Russian pride blind you to the evils of the past.
That would be like me trying to downplay the institution of American Slavery.
I have to say though, Iron_Captain is citing statistics and is being met with "nuh-uh" and "Russian propaganda!". As I'm sure Iron_Captain will vouch, I have no love for Russia, but come on.
Have you all lost your minds? Iron_captain is quoting the constituion of a mass mobilizing totalitarian state.
If that is his best claim that balts were tretatet nice, in a state was occupying it and deporting their ethnicity to Siberia, then he needs to educate himself a bit. A visit to the occupation museum in Riga might be a good start.
I dont really blame him. If he truly is russian, in stead of dutch, they simply do not know any better. Reading russian history books is like a litterary monthy python sketch. Most russians could hardly spell half of the massacres that their grandparents and parental generations did. Same goes for most peoples hailing from dictatorships, like China and Iran. They are hilariously concerned with democratic countries, and confuse their self-examination of wrongs that were done, with the existence of this, as opposed to the shamefull silence in their own countries, which they take to mean nothing happened.
Since he is confused about even the right to sing national songs during the oppressive brutal Soviet years, I will add in a few links for him to educate himself regarding that particular repression done by the russian chauvinistic soviet state as well towards the balts: http://freemuse.org/archives/1050http://www.estemb.org/press/us_media/aid-1038 And I quote: “In the late 1980’s music was once again used as a unifying force when hundreds of thousands gathered to sing forbidden Estonian songs, demanding their right for self-determination from a brutal Soviet occupier. To truly understand Estonia, one must understand Estonian music,” writes the film’s producer-couple, James and Maureen Tusty, on Singingrevolution.com. He might also watch the decent documentary: "The Singing revolution"
@almigghty Walrus; you might just as well quote the Swedish Constitution, where it says that the Monarch appoints the government, for all the good it does you proving a claim. Iron Captain is preaching nonsense
triplegrim wrote: Have you all lost your minds? Iron_captain is quoting the constituion of a mass mobilizing totalitarian state.
If that is his best claim that balts were tretatet nice, in a state was occupying it and deporting their ethnicity to Siberia, then he needs to educate himself a bit. A visit to the occupation museum in Riga might be a good start.
I dont really blame him. If he truly is russian, in stead of dutch, they simply do not know any better. Reading russian history books is like a litterary monthy python sketch. Most russians could hardly spell half of the massacres that their grandparents and parental generations did. Same goes for most peoples hailing from dictatorships, like China and Iran. They are hilariously concerned with democratic countries, and confuse their self-examination of wrongs that were done, with the existence of this, as opposed to the shamefull silence in their own countries, which they take to mean nothing happened.
Since he is confused about even the right to sing national songs during the oppressive brutal Soviet years, I will add in a few links for him to educate himself regarding that particular repression done by the russian chauvinistic soviet state as well towards the balts: http://freemuse.org/archives/1050http://www.estemb.org/press/us_media/aid-1038 And I quote: “In the late 1980’s music was once again used as a unifying force when hundreds of thousands gathered to sing forbidden Estonian songs, demanding their right for self-determination from a brutal Soviet occupier. To truly understand Estonia, one must understand Estonian music,” writes the film’s producer-couple, James and Maureen Tusty, on Singingrevolution.com. He might also watch the decent documentary: "The Singing revolution"
@almigghty Walrus; you might just as well quote the Swedish Constitution, where it says that the Monarch appoints the government, for all the good it does you proving a claim. Iron Captain is preaching nonsense
Well, this is getting off topic now, but did you see me claim that Balts were treated nice? Nyet! I didn't. Stalin was a brutal tyrant who killed millions in all regions of the Soviet Union. The Balts got the same brutal treatment as all other nationalities under Stalin, in order to bring them in line with the Communist Party ideology. My arguments were that the amount of people deported from the Baltics is nowhere close to 30% of the entire population, and that the American annexation of Hawaii has been more devastating to the Hawaian people than the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states was for the Baltic peoples. You failed to respond to those arguments, bring any evidence in support of your own arguments (neither of the links you posted supports your claims) and instead went like: "Lol Russian propaganda!", and "the Soviet Union was evil!", and worse of all "Russians (and Chinese and Iranians) are incapable of critical thinking", which is pretty discriminating. Now who is preaching nonsense here?
Just for the record, most Russians are very well aware of their own history, including the bad parts. Opinion in Russia is very much divided regarding the historical legacy. Not all Russians are blind nationalists or Soviet apologists, and many are quite critical of both historical and current governments. And regarding Estonian songs: Songs that were too nationalist, anti-Soviet or anti-communist were most likely banned, just as many Russian songs were banned. But do you hear anyone claiming the Russian language was supressed because some Russian songs were forbidden? A language is not supressed just because some politically sensitive songs were banned. Estonian songs and music in general were just as legal as Russian songs and music.
triplegrim wrote: He asks for sources, since he is not really enlightened on the topic he wants to debate.
Ehm, that's not how a debate works. Backing your own sources up is kind of the central tenet to debating something, he'd be asking for sources because all you had in your previous post was a bunch of unsubstantiated claims. For what it's worth, you still haven't refuted his point that 30% of the population would be rather crippling.
The worst part is, I'm on your side, but you're being so sloppy that it's doing more harm than good.
Iron_Captain wrote: Sure, Balts, like everyone else, suffered repression under the early days of the Soviet Union, but they were always full citizens with equal rights from the beginning. The US rule has practically destroyed Hawaian language and culture, and only 10% of the population is still actually Hawaian. You can argue all you want, but Russian occupation of the Baltics has been far less destructive for them than US occupation of Hawaii has been for the Hawaian people.
You should smoke less hashish in the Netherlands.
Local government in the baltic states? In the Soviet Union, the Kremlin ruled supreme. Estonians could not even sing their traditional songs in the squares of the capital. They did not rule themself with "ethnic local governments".
Nor would it have been possible in the soviet system, which may have had the rethorics of a federal state, but certainly functioned as an unitary state.
If the Hawaiians now are 10% of the population, it is not because 90% has been killed, but because they were overwhelmed by immigration. The dutch are only 79% of the population in Netherlands in 2015, but are still much more numerous than when they were 97% in 1900 and only counted 4 millions, as compared to the 13,4 millions they are now.
In comparison the baltic countries, actually had their demographics changed by such massive rates as 25% and 30% of the populations deported to siberian Gulags, in the cases of Estonia and Latvia. [/spoiler]
Erm, no, the Kingdom of Hawaii once numbered almost a million souls. Compare that to the 140,000 that are around today. This wasn't really the fault of the US (disease did the Kingdom of Hawaii in, just like so many other Native nations; the US just happened to be in a position to take advantage of Hawaii's weakness), but the Native Hawaiians have become a minority through a combination of plague and immigration (immigration still is a factor, as you said, but Hawaiians would likely number in the tens of millions today, had they not been devastated during the 19th Century).
On the Kremlin: Obviously they ruled with a tight fist via KGB and similar institutions, but the extent to which the USSR controlled each individual Republic will never be known. It may have been that these were all puppet states with nothing but virtual sovereignty, or they could have been fully in control of themselves with all of the rights Iron Captain thinks they had. We really will never know, unless a former head of the KGB decides to pop in and tell us what's what.
triplegrim wrote:Have you all lost your minds? Iron_captain is quoting the constituion of a mass mobilizing totalitarian state.
Spoiler:
If that is his best claim that balts were tretatet nice, in a state was occupying it and deporting their ethnicity to Siberia, then he needs to educate himself a bit. A visit to the occupation museum in Riga might be a good start.
I dont really blame him. If he truly is russian, in stead of dutch, they simply do not know any better. Reading russian history books is like a litterary monthy python sketch. Most russians could hardly spell half of the massacres that their grandparents and parental generations did. Same goes for most peoples hailing from dictatorships, like China and Iran. They are hilariously concerned with democratic countries, and confuse their self-examination of wrongs that were done, with the existence of this, as opposed to the shamefull silence in their own countries, which they take to mean nothing happened.
Since he is confused about even the right to sing national songs during the oppressive brutal Soviet years, I will add in a few links for him to educate himself regarding that particular repression done by the russian chauvinistic soviet state as well towards the balts: http://freemuse.org/archives/1050http://www.estemb.org/press/us_media/aid-1038 And I quote: “In the late 1980’s music was once again used as a unifying force when hundreds of thousands gathered to sing forbidden Estonian songs, demanding their right for self-determination from a brutal Soviet occupier. To truly understand Estonia, one must understand Estonian music,” writes the film’s producer-couple, James and Maureen Tusty, on Singingrevolution.com. He might also watch the decent documentary: "The Singing revolution"
@almigghty Walrus; you might just as well quote the Swedish Constitution, where it says that the Monarch appoints the government, for all the good it does you proving a claim. Iron Captain is preaching nonsense
Dude, just... No. Sloppy and dismissive af. First of all, how do you know that the filtered knowledge you've been given in whatever Socialist State that you're from is accurate? Second of all, obviously former Soviet Nationalists (the devoted kind) are going to be misinformed, but somebody who is acknowledging what you say (saying that you're partially right, even) and fully accepting atrocities committed by the Soviet Union isn't going to be one of the ignoramuses. Remember, most of those former Soviet Republics now have access to the same internet that you do, and therefore have the capability to educate themselves, not to mention the fact that the governments now allow so much more freedom and better education than the filtered crap that a lot of people were getting when the Stalinist way of doing things was still in full swing.
Spoiler:
Well, this is getting off topic now, but did you see me claim that Balts were treated nice? Nyet! I didn't.
Stalin was a brutal tyrant who killed millions in all regions of the Soviet Union. The Balts got the same brutal treatment as all other nationalities under Stalin, in order to bring them in line with the Communist Party ideology.
My arguments were that the amount of people deported from the Baltics is nowhere close to 30% of the entire population, and that the American annexation of Hawaii has been more devastating to the Hawaian people than the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states was for the Baltic peoples.
You failed to respond to those arguments, bring any evidence in support of your own arguments (neither of the links you posted supports your claims) and instead went like:
"Lol Russian propaganda!", and "the Soviet Union was evil!", and worse of all "Russians (and Chinese and Iranians) are incapable of critical thinking", which is pretty discriminating.
Now who is preaching nonsense here?
Just for the record, most Russians are very well aware of their own history, including the bad parts. Opinion in Russia is very much divided regarding the historical legacy. Not all Russians are blind nationalists or Soviet apologists, and many are quite critical of both historical and current governments.
And regarding Estonian songs: Songs that were too nationalist, anti-Soviet or anti-communist were most likely banned, just as many Russian songs were banned. But do you hear anyone claiming the Russian language was supressed because some Russian songs were forbidden? A language is not supressed just because some politically sensitive songs were banned. Estonian songs and music in general were just as legal as Russian songs and music.
Remember, we all have the burden of proof with claims. Simply living where you do doesn't auto-magically make everything you say correct. Anyways, on your claim:
I'd argue that the opposite is true. The Hawaiians have had their culture suppressed, yes(though they did this to themselves; being facilitated in doing so by Missionaries over many decades). However, the Hawaiian language is today forever preserved in its written form (as Western Missionaries assisted the Hawaiians in designing an alphabet). Today, Hawaiians have a solid economy, high standards of living, and the backing of the [arguably] most powerful military in the world. While Hawaii was brutally oppressed during the 1800s, the US occupied it and, in the following decades, slowly brought it on par with the rest of the US; standards of living, economy, the whole nine yards. Of course, it was culturally and economically raped beforehand, but that's more due to the corruption of the Hawaiian Monarchy and the businessmen involved in its exploitation than any fault of the US government (though they likely had a hand in it, but there's no evidence of it, so...). So, post-1800s, Hawaii has benefited massively from being a territory (and eventual State) of the USA. I really don't see much benefit in how the Baltic States were annexed, though, so I'd say Hawaii "wins" this comparison. Of course, they could have benefited massively, but afaik, they mostly got butchered and oppressed (though I could be wrong; I've never actually studied this portion of Russian history outside of cursory glances here and there).
They can have Alaska back when they pry it from my cold dead...wait how cold is it? Jeez forget it. Thats cold. Thats Valhallan ice warriors kind of cold. Yowsa.
I'd argue that the opposite is true. The Hawaiians have had their culture suppressed, yes(though they did this to themselves; being facilitated in doing so by Missionaries over many decades). However, the Hawaiian language is today forever preserved in its written form (as Western Missionaries assisted the Hawaiians in designing an alphabet). Today, Hawaiians have a solid economy, high standards of living, and the backing of the [arguably] most powerful military in the world. While Hawaii was brutally oppressed during the 1800s, the US occupied it and, in the following decades, slowly brought it on par with the rest of the US; standards of living, economy, the whole nine yards. Of course, it was culturally and economically raped beforehand, but that's more due to the corruption of the Hawaiian Monarchy and the businessmen involved in its exploitation than any fault of the US government (though they likely had a hand in it, but there's no evidence of it, so...). So, post-1800s, Hawaii has benefited massively from being a territory (and eventual State) of the USA. I really don't see much benefit in how the Baltic States were annexed, though, so I'd say Hawaii "wins" this comparison. Of course, they could have benefited massively, but afaik, they mostly got butchered and oppressed (though I could be wrong; I've never actually studied this portion of Russian history outside of cursory glances here and there).
The Baltic states did get benefits from Soviet occupation. Like all provinces of the Russian Empire, the Baltic States were agricultural backwaters a 100 years behind the rest of Europe, and the Soviets launched a massive modernisation and industrialisation. But in the end, they gained nothing they would not have probably gained eventually if they had stayed independent. There were also many drawbacks, to Soviet occupation, most importantly being cut of from the rest of the world and being forced to take over the Soviet methods of economy. So while in the short term, the Soviets brought great improvement, in the long term, they did a lot of damage when the Soviet economical system started to go wrong. The best comparison is Finland, which was also a Russian province, but made a deal with Lenin to become independent. Finland was eventually able to catch up to Western Europe, and while there are no guarantees that Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania could have done the same (the circumstances are quite different), they might have been able to do so.
On the other hand, the Hawaians have eventually had a massive economical benefit from the US annexation, but the question there is if that weighs up against the loss of their culture and control over their own land.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: They can have Alaska back when they pry it from my cold dead...wait how cold is it? Jeez forget it. Thats cold. Thats Valhallan ice warriors kind of cold. Yowsa.
No, we want it back. We can turn it into a winter resort for Siberians. Come visit pleasant Alyaska, with tropical temperatures up to -20 and only half the amount of wolves and bears!
On second thought...
Keep it. Russia has enough frozen wastelands already.
I prefer Crimea. Mediteranean climates are best climats. It is known.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Correct me if im wrong, but doesnt every statd have a secessionist movement?
Not... Really? I mean, I suppose if you look, there's probably some random crazies just about anywhere who think that they should succeed and be their own country. But a bunch of random crazies does not in my mind constitute a secessionist movement anymore than a bunch of sovereign citizen gun nuts who like to play army in the woods constitute a militia.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Correct me if im wrong, but doesnt every statd have a secessionist movement?
Not... Really? I mean, I suppose if you look, there's probably some random crazies just about anywhere who think that they should succeed and be their own country. But a bunch of random crazies does not in my mind constitute a secessionist movement anymore than a bunch of sovereign citizen gun nuts who like to play army in the woods constitute a militia.
The only ones that come to mind as remotely "seriously" are:
Why do you think the Texas one is serious? There aren't enough secesh to fill a Denny's bathroom here. I seem to yell at three of them on a daily basis on a gun board (I estimate that to be more than half their number).
The members of La Raza outnumber them by about 300 to 1.
Frazzled wrote: Why do you think the Texas one is serious? There aren't enough secesh to fill a Denny's bathroom here. I seem to yell at three of them on a daily basis on a gun board (I estimate that to be more than half their number).
The members of La Raza outnumber them by about 300 to 1.
I didn't mean the State as a whole. Just that those are the four instances I can think off that have a "serious" group supporting the movement. I don't think that any of those four movements will have any success either.
Grey Templar wrote: Do the efforts to split CA into 2 states count? Because that is actually a pretty good idea.
What are those: Hipsterland and Norte Mexico?
There are several proposals. One splits it between the coast and the inland areas, another splits it about 80 miles north of LA. I like the latter as it cuts off LA from the rest.
We have a movement like that here in NY, but to kick the city out of the state/have the city secede. Sometimes that includes Long Island, sometimes not.
dusara217 wrote: This wasn't really the fault of the US (disease did the Kingdom of Hawaii in, just like so many other Native nations; the US just happened to be in a position to take advantage of Hawaii's weakness), but the Native Hawaiians have become a minority through a combination of plague and immigration (immigration still is a factor, as you said, but Hawaiians would likely number in the tens of millions today, had they not been devastated during the 19th Century).
Highly doubtful, as that would make it one of the (if not the) most densely populated countries in the world. Having spent most of my years in just such a country (Taiwan: 23 million, 35k km2 - all other contenders are pretty much city-states), I'll tell you with some confidence that Hawaii is way too small to hold "tens of millions" without some sci-fi arcology.
Though surprisingly, Taiwan is still mostly forested (actually very mountainous, just like Hawaii).
There's no way their population was 1 million. Today with modern production and construction, Hawaii has a population of 1.4 million. I highly doubt there were that many people living on the island in the 18th century (before small pox ravaged the local population). At the start of the 19th century, the population of England, Scotland, and Wales was just over 1 million, and the Isle of Britain has a land mass of 80,000 sq Miles, 8x that of Hawaii.
LordofHats wrote: There's no way their population was 1 million. Today with modern production and construction, Hawaii has a population of 1.4 million. I highly doubt there were that many people living on the island in the 18th century (before small pox ravaged the local population). At the start of the 19th century, the population of England, Scotland, and Wales was just over 1 million, and the Isle of Britain has a land mass of 80,000 sq Miles, 8x that of Hawaii.
A quick google search reveals that the population of Britain in 1801 was around 10 million. Even the population during the Middle Ages was well over a million, with Europe having around 100 million total.
Hawaii, however, is not very suitable for agriculture so I'm somewhat skeptical of a 1 million figure. If I'm not mistaken, the population is still debated, ranging from a low of 100k to a million.
Kilkrazy wrote: It seems to me that if Hawaii did not voluntarily enter the union they are in no way legally or morally bound to remain a member. However I think it is a moot point. It is unlikely that it would even be possible to arrange a fair plebiscite on the matter now, and even if done the vote would most likely be to remain a member.
The State of Hawaii willingly entered the Union, at the behest of the voters. Hawaii's annexation as a territory isn't really all that different then most other US states west of the Louisiana Purchase. They were all originally incorporated at gun/cannon point as territories. Eventually the citizens of the territories decided they wanted to be states, voted for it, and Congress passed bills that enacted it. Hawaii is no different. The citizens of the territory wished to become a state, and did.
As I understand it, the annexation in the 1800's was at the behest of white land owners. The Native Hawaiins wanted nothing to do with being part of the U.S.
"Following WW2, Hawaii was placed on the list of non self-governing territories by the United Nations, with the United States as trustee, under Article 73. Under the UN charter, the status of a territory can only be changed by a special vote, called a plebiscite, held among the inhabitants of the territory. That plebiscite is required to have three choices on the ballot. The first choice is to become a part of the trustee nation. In Hawaii's case that meant to become a state. The second choice was to remain a territory. And the third choice, required by the UN Charter, was the option for independence. For Hawaii, that meant no longer being a territory of the United States and returning to being an independent sovereign nation.
In 1959 Hawaii's plebiscite vote was held, and again, the United States government bent the rules. The plebiscite ballot only had the choice between statehood and remaining a territory. No option for independence appeared on the ballot as was required under the UN charter. Cheated out of their independence yet again, Hawaiians voted for the lesser of two evils and became the 50th state."
Didn't we already have a war about this sort of thing? I think it was pretty much decided by said war that states can't leave the Union.
And something that happened over a hundred years ago isn't cause for calling out for independence. It's been a state for a while. "Occupation" is an outright lie.
MWHistorian wrote: Didn't we already have a war about this sort of thing? I think it was pretty much decided by said war that states can't leave the Union.
And something that happened over a hundred years ago isn't cause for calling out for independence. It's been a state for a while. "Occupation" is an outright lie.
It would probably be crippling for Hawaii to gain it's indepenence now, since the rest of the country is so tightly bound into it's fabric.
LordofHats wrote: There's no way their population was 1 million. Today with modern production and construction, Hawaii has a population of 1.4 million. I highly doubt there were that many people living on the island in the 18th century (before small pox ravaged the local population). At the start of the 19th century, the population of England, Scotland, and Wales was just over 1 million, and the Isle of Britain has a land mass of 80,000 sq Miles, 8x that of Hawaii.
A quick google search reveals that the population of Britain in 1801 was around 10 million. Even the population during the Middle Ages was well over a million, with Europe having around 100 million total.
Yes I think I missed the fine print on the chart I found XD
Hawaii, however, is not very suitable for agriculture so I'm somewhat skeptical of a 1 million figure. If I'm not mistaken, the population is still debated, ranging from a low of 100k to a million.
Well if Britain could boast a 10 mil pop, then 1 mil on Hawaii is a lot less far fetched. At this point we're hitting the same problem we hit with most Pre-Columbian contact populations, no one can really agree on a number and there honestly isn't much you can do to hazard a guess by compare and contrast with other regions.
MWHistorian wrote: Didn't we already have a war about this sort of thing? I think it was pretty much decided by said war that states can't leave the Union.
And something that happened over a hundred years ago isn't cause for calling out for independence. It's been a state for a while. "Occupation" is an outright lie.
Exactly. As noted, the case of Lee vs. Grant decided this once and for all.
. Pick up Guam & Palau
