Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Was that the beads thing? Tell me it was the beads thing.

 Frazzled wrote:

Of course you realize this means war.

Food. At dawn. You bring your meanest tex mex, and I'll bring the pork steaks.

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...

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Everyone on dakka made fun of my 49 star flag business. But now, now im vindicated

Go for 51 stars, drop hawaii, it's a blue state anyways . Pick up Guam & Palau

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...

 daedalus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Of course you realize this means war.

Food. At dawn. You bring your meanest tex mex, and I'll bring the pork steaks.

Your pork making skills shall be adapted to service...us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
Was that the beads thing? Tell me it was the beads thing.

yea but they were awesome beads.

 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.

As a blue-belly Yankee Carpet-bagger, I am strongly against Seccession in any form.

 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?

 CptJake wrote:

 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?

Never.

 kronk wrote:
Was that the beads thing? Tell me it was the beads thing.

I finally understand thew whole New Orleans mardigra beads thing. It's all a plan by the US govt to keep them Frenchies from making their own state.

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.

 Alex C wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Are you ignorant of something called THE CIVIL WAR?

People soon will be if all these butthurt PC SJW's get their way and destroy all historical record of it ever happening.

I think you mean APC SIWs. The SJWs are keen to keep the Civil War in memory, because it was one of the great civil rights actions of history.

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.

To the OP:

Nein.

They're not recognized American Indian tribes that has a treaty with the US government.

As to PR gaining stateshood... I'm all for anyone wanting to be in the US family.

Totally surprised that it hasn't happened yet really. I wonder if the US bails out PR's finance issues that it'll garner good-will towards stateshood.

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.

I meant a congressional vote, yes.

 Frazzled wrote:
Where is the part where "the Union" is giving permission?

In the OP, which you clearly didn't read, hence the "classic Frazz".

A hypothetical question is being asked here. Would you vote to allow Hawaii the chance to secede? Yes, I would.

 CptJake wrote:

 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.

There's a precedent in US history. You don't get to leave the Union. Period.

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.

 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.

As Hawaii is the only American state to have the Union Jack on its state flag, then Hawaii is under British protection!

Those damn Yankees will pay for this insult to Britannia!

America: prepare to suffer the wrath of the classic two pronged attack!

1) The Royal Navy will blockade the Chesapeake, thus forcing the New England merchants to persuade President Madison to sue for peace.

2) 10,000 redcoats will march down from Canada and occupy Boston, thus cutting off New England from the rest of the USA

you have 48 hours to withdraw from Hawaii

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
America: prepare to suffer the wrath of the classic two pronged attack!

1) The Royal Navy will blockade the Chesapeake, thus forcing the New England merchants to persuade President Madison to sue for peace.

2) 10,000 redcoats will march down from Canada and occupy Boston, thus cutting off New England from the rest of the USA

you have 48 hours to withdraw from Hawaii

*NUCLEAR LAUNCH DETECTED*

 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.

 notprop wrote:

Yeah, loosing roughly 90% of the indigenous population in the first few decades of US sovereignty was quite the reaping.

Who were they loosed upon?

 LordofHats wrote:


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?