how is it an “occupation” when Hawaiians themselves voted to become a state by a 94+% majority?
On June 27, 1959, a referendum asked residents of Hawaiʻi to vote on the statehood bill; 94.3% voted in favor of statehood and 5.7% opposed it.
(source)
If voting “yes” on a referendum to be annexed is an accurate way of knowing that the majority of the populace supports annexation, does the same logic apply to Crimea being annexed by Russia? If not, why not?
inventing some history again are you? because this never happened. if you have to stoop this low to try to “score points” how much lower will you stoop?
So you don’t have an argument and have to make shit up. Cool. Judging by your other responses in the thread, you’re a shill trying to astroturf support for the U.S., so Imma block you 💅
You said “[a yes vote on Russia annexing Crimea] never happened.”
YOU said that. keep your words out of my mouth.
I showed that it did.
you know everyone can see your comments and my comments, right? that is very much not what happened, as anyone with eyeballs can see. I’m sorry that you’re having trouble seeing reality. consult a physician.
You responded with “We’re taking about Hawaii here.”
because we are, despite your attempts to change the subject. are you lost again?
The choice was to become a state or remain a territory. Either yes or no would have had Hawaiian peoples occupied. Statehood could be seen as a regaining a scrap of self determination but all it ended up doing was impoverishing the natives and ceding all wealth to colonizing capitalists. This is a primarily function of bourgeois democracy.
by voting to become a state - especially to such an overwhelming majority - you can hardly argue a dispositive attitude towards the US being there or towards joining the union. so, not only have you moved the goalposts, you’re arguing a straw man and your own emotions.
Once again they were given a choice between becoming a state or remaining a territory. Not for independence. It’d be like offering a scrap of bread to a starving man in exchange for the man legitimizing your ability to keep him malnourished.
The ole adage of "the only thing worse than being exploited is not being exploited " comes to mind.
Since you can’t be assed to read your own damn wiki article I assume you’re just in bad faith.
sure. why not? people can object to or protest anything.
the fee expression of speech in a democratic forum, however, certainly argues against any of this being “fascist”, though. thanks of pointing this out!
You’re the one reducing possibilities. Your dichotomy is between staying a territory and becoming a state. While being a state is nominally better than being outright occupied subjects, prior to colonization they were better off, and you suggest decolonization and not being colonized aren’t options.
your lack of ability to imagine another option (such as revolt, etc.) does not mean you “win” the argument. it just means you lose because you lack imagination.
YOUR ARGUMENT is that the result of this referendum matters. It doesn’t because, as you’ve identified, both options are the same. As for Hawaiian resistance, they’ve been fighting continuously for a hundred years and, like every other liberation movement against the USA, have been ruthlessly suppressed by the fascist police and petty-bourgeoise militia of the “middle class”. And, like every other liberation struggle, victory is inevitable as the empire continues to crumble beneath the weight of its sins.
Also, neat how you’ve got five devoted followers upvoting you within two minutes on every one of your shitty empire-shilling posts for the last several hours
Yeah I’ve seen at least two of this dork’s alts posting the same dumb infographics of logical fallacies that they themselves are committing without a hint of irony.
YOUR ARGUMENT is that the result of this referendum matters
The FACTS bear that out. you’re attacking me because I pointed that out.
It doesn’t because, as you’ve identified, both options are the same
I didn’t say that, you did. keep your words out of my mouth.
As for Hawaiian resistance, they’ve been fighting continuously for a hundred years and, like every other liberation movement against the USA, have been ruthlessly suppressed by the fascist police and petty-bourgeoise militia of the “middle class”.
relevant to the argument, and a
you guys are addicted to logical fallacies
And, like every other liberation struggle, victory is inevitable as the empire continues to crumble beneath the weight of its sins.
cute story. also irrelevant
Also, neat how you’ve got five devoted followers upvoting you within two minutes on every one of your shitty empire-shilling posts for the last several hours
In 1897, over 21,000 Natives, representing the overwhelming majority of adult Hawaiians, signed anti-annexation petitions in one of the first examples of protest against the overthrow of Queen Liliʻuokalaniʻs government.[143] Nearly 100 years later, in 1993, 17,000 Hawaiians marched to demand access and control over Hawaiian trust lands and as part of the modern Hawaiian sovereignty movement.[144] Hawaiian trust land ownership and use is still widely contested as a consequence of annexation. According to scholar Winona LaDuke, as of 2015, 95% of Hawaiʻiʻs land was owned or controlled by just 82 landholders, including over 50% by federal and state governments, as well as the established sugar and pineapple companies.[144] The Thirty Meter Telescope is planned to be built on Hawaiian trust land, but has faced resistance as the project interferes with Kanaka indigeneity.[clarify][145]
If you think a referendum from 1959 fairly represents the interests of the native population then what else is there to say.
If you think a referendum from 1959 fairly represents the interests of the native population then what else is there to say.
that it does, and you have failed to prove otherwise despite quoting a block f text you clearly don’t understand— OR are intentionally misrepresenting, hoping everyone else here is too stupid to realize you’re trying to pull a fast one on them.
A referendum to either become a state or remain a territory is not relevant to the question of the occupation.
only because you’ve moved the goalposts when you couldn’t win that argument with facts.
People were never given a choice of independence
the people always ave that choice. they can protest, revolt, etc. Did the Bolsheviks just ask the Tsars to pretty please step aside?
Seems that you’re intentionally arguing in bad faith here.
I’m not the one ignoring facts, employing logical fallacies and hurling personal insults when I don’t “win” online arguments.
Clearly you’re a much bigger idiot than I thought you were.
can’t argue with facts, so playskool insults it is. classy. no wonder I see he molding full of you getting posts and comments removed, and you’re totally banned form lemmy.world.
only because you’ve moved the goalposts when you couldn’t win that argument with facts.
I didn’t move any goal posts. I said Hawaii is an occupied territory, and you came back with BuT ThEy HaD a RefErEnduM. Forgetting to mention that the referendum wasn’t actually about independence and that the people of Hawaii were never given a choice of independence by their occupiers.
There is no false dichotomy here. It’s hilarious seeing your comment history where you communicate through memes like a 5 year old child.
the people always ave that choice. they can protest, revolt, etc. Did the Bolsheviks just ask the Tsars to pretty please step aside?
People in Hawaii are revolting against your regime as we speak.
The facts are that you made false claim and now you don’t even have the decency to admit it. No point having further discussion with a liar.
“nuh-uh!” isn’t a very convincing argument. most people learn this when they’re 5.
There is no false dichotomy here.
see my previous reply
People in Hawaii are revolting against your regime as we speak.
a handful of protesters is hardly a “revolt”, but you’re adorable for thinking “big”.
The facts are
the last thing you have is a grasp on the facts. your comment an post history are proof enough of that, with a long history of bans, deleted comments, and verbally being drummed you of most places you visit or being a toxic mess.
“nuh-uh!” isn’t a very convincing argument. most people learn this when they’re 5.
Do feel free to articulate which goal posts you’re claiming that I moved. Be specific.
see my previous reply
I did, it’s nonsensical.
a handful of protesters is hardly a “revolt”, but you’re adorable for thinking “big”.
Way to dismiss majority of the native population. I guess that’s what you’d expect from racist occupiers.
the last thing you have is a grasp on the facts. your comment an post history are proof enough of that, with a long history of bans, deleted comments, and verbally being drummed you of most places you visit or being a toxic mess.
Wow interesting narrative you made up about me there. Maybe send me of whatever drugs you’re having while hallucinating these things, cause that sounds like some good shit.
lmao you illiterate jackass. a sham vote to join a nation that overthrew your actual government by a bunch of people who moved there specifically to move the needle on that exact vote means nothing. christ, you liberals really love white nationalism as much as the flag fuckers do
Hawaii—a U.S. territory since 1898—became the 50th state in August, 1959, following a referendum in Hawaii in which more than 93% of the voters approved the proposition that the territory should be admitted as a state.
There were many Hawaiian petitions for statehood during the first half of the 20th century.
The voters wished to participate directly in electing their own governor and to have a full voice in national debates and elections that affected their lives. The voters also felt that statehood was warranted because they had demonstrated their loyalty—no matter what their ethnic background—to the U.S. to the fullest extent during World War II.
On June 27, 1959, a referendum asked residents of Hawaiʻi to vote on the statehood bill; 94.3% voted in favor of statehood and 5.7% opposed it. The referendum asked voters to choose between accepting the Act and remaining a U.S. territory. The United Nations’ Special Committee on Decolonization later removed Hawaiʻi from its list of non-self-governing territories.
I think it’s more than a little dishonest to say that the native Hawaiians voted for this. At the time of this referendum, they composed about 15% of the population and their culture and identity had been suppressed for generations.
The US government even admitted in 1993 that the native people never agreed to this.
I think it’s more than a little dishonest to say that the native Hawaiians voted for this.
almost as dishonest as claiming is said something I didn’t and then moving the goalposts to win an argument…
At the time of this referendum, they composed about 15% of the population and their culture and identity had been suppressed for generations.
irrelevant. sad, but irrelevant. thy got to vote, just like anyone else, and, even by your numbers, 2/3 of THAT population voted for statehood.
The US government even admitted in 1993 that the native people never agreed to this.
that’s not what that says, but it’s nice to know how easy it is for you to lie to try to get ahead in an argument. “winning” online debates must be very important for you.
Swarming lands with your settlers and then claiming b-but they muh voted for it, is peak lib cracker imperialism. The french did the same in New Caledonia.
Swarming lands with your settlers and then claiming b-but they muh voted for it, is peak lib cracker imperialism. The french did the same in New Caledonia.
so, when you can’t argue with facts, you rest to redefining words, personal insults, and racist slurs.
I didn’t argue with you, I made clear statements about your nature and your character. Its up to you to change that and if you refuse, well thats just proves me right in the end.
The discussion is about US OCCUPYING Hawaii. Imagine thinking that a referendum of the occupiers on whether they want to keep occupying is a valid way to decide whether people who have bee OCCUPIED agree with the occupation. It’s like if I moved into your house and put a gun to your head, and then ran a referendum to see if I should stay there.
The fact that you don’t understand how idiotic your argument is shows what an utter imbecile you are.
It would be up to the people who live there to figure out how to run things. This is certainly not an argument for US to continue occupying them.
how is it an “occupation” when Hawaiians themselves voted to become a state by a 94+% majority?
If voting “yes” on a referendum to be annexed is an accurate way of knowing that the majority of the populace supports annexation, does the same logic apply to Crimea being annexed by Russia? If not, why not?
inventing some history again are you? because this never happened. if you have to stoop this low to try to “score points” how much lower will you stoop?
So you don’t have an argument and have to make shit up. Cool. Judging by your other responses in the thread, you’re a shill trying to astroturf support for the U.S., so Imma block you 💅
“I know you are but what am I?” is not a convincing argument. most people learn this when they’re 5.
nah, just argue the facts, which I provide. you don’t like it and hurl childish insults in response. blocking me is doing ME a favor. bye!
Uhhh https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/03/16/290525623/crimeans-vote-on-splitting-from-ukraine-to-join-russia
there’s moving the goalposts, then there’s moving them 55 years into the future and to the other side of the planet.
We’re taking about Hawaii here. you’re so lost and hate the US and “The West™®©” so much that you think this is one of your Ukaine/Russia arguments. WOW….
Get the fuck out of here
YOU said that. keep your words out of my mouth.
you know everyone can see your comments and my comments, right? that is very much not what happened, as anyone with eyeballs can see. I’m sorry that you’re having trouble seeing reality. consult a physician.
because we are, despite your attempts to change the subject. are you lost again?
The choice was to become a state or remain a territory. Either yes or no would have had Hawaiian peoples occupied. Statehood could be seen as a regaining a scrap of self determination but all it ended up doing was impoverishing the natives and ceding all wealth to colonizing capitalists. This is a primarily function of bourgeois democracy.
by voting to become a state - especially to such an overwhelming majority - you can hardly argue a dispositive attitude towards the US being there or towards joining the union. so, not only have you moved the goalposts, you’re arguing a straw man and your own emotions.
I’m sticking with provable facts.
Once again they were given a choice between becoming a state or remaining a territory. Not for independence. It’d be like offering a scrap of bread to a starving man in exchange for the man legitimizing your ability to keep him malnourished.
The ole adage of "the only thing worse than being exploited is not being exploited " comes to mind.
Since you can’t be assed to read your own damn wiki article I assume you’re just in bad faith.
Hawaiians could have protested, revolted, or one of many other options. But they didn’t.
That’s the thing about facts— your opinions don’t magically make them untrue, regardless of how many folksy sayings or logical fallacies you conjure.
🐷 💩 🥎
Lol your mind sure is something.
spoiler
Like the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement which began actively protesting and gained support in the 1960s, pretty soon after the referendum?
sure. why not? people can object to or protest anything.
the fee expression of speech in a democratic forum, however, certainly argues against any of this being “fascist”, though. thanks of pointing this out!
So then your point about
Is false
So to quote you
What if 90% of Hawaiians had revolted (and lost) while 90%+ of the other 10% of Hawaiians voted in the referendum?
You’re the one reducing possibilities. Your dichotomy is between staying a territory and becoming a state. While being a state is nominally better than being outright occupied subjects, prior to colonization they were better off, and you suggest decolonization and not being colonized aren’t options.
I never made this argument, but several others here did. in fact, I, several times, pointed out that there were other possibilities.
clearly you’re confused.
Should I kill you with my sword or with my gun?
Sorry, “I want to live” was not an option on the ballot
sigh…
Referendum is literally: “Would you like to be a state or a territory? Independence is not an option.”
Sigh…
False dichotomy is when you point out that people might want something other than two shit binary choices.
your lack of ability to imagine another option (such as revolt, etc.) does not mean you “win” the argument. it just means you lose because you lack imagination.
YOUR ARGUMENT is that the result of this referendum matters. It doesn’t because, as you’ve identified, both options are the same. As for Hawaiian resistance, they’ve been fighting continuously for a hundred years and, like every other liberation movement against the USA, have been ruthlessly suppressed by the fascist police and petty-bourgeoise militia of the “middle class”. And, like every other liberation struggle, victory is inevitable as the empire continues to crumble beneath the weight of its sins.
Also, neat how you’ve got five devoted followers upvoting you within two minutes on every one of your shitty empire-shilling posts for the last several hours
But no down votes!
Yeah I’ve seen at least two of this dork’s alts posting the same dumb infographics of logical fallacies that they themselves are committing without a hint of irony.
The FACTS bear that out. you’re attacking me because I pointed that out.
I didn’t say that, you did. keep your words out of my mouth.
relevant to the argument, and a
you guys are addicted to logical fallacies
cute story. also irrelevant
jealousy is an ugly look
from your own link
If you think a referendum from 1959 fairly represents the interests of the native population then what else is there to say.
Person is in bad faith and worse, smug. Hhit em with a PPB.
that it does, and you have failed to prove otherwise despite quoting a block f text you clearly don’t understand— OR are intentionally misrepresenting, hoping everyone else here is too stupid to realize you’re trying to pull a fast one on them.
Fortunately, I’m not the idiot you think I am.
Removed by mod
only because you’ve moved the goalposts when you couldn’t win that argument with facts.
the people always ave that choice. they can protest, revolt, etc. Did the Bolsheviks just ask the Tsars to pretty please step aside?
I’m not the one ignoring facts, employing logical fallacies and hurling personal insults when I don’t “win” online arguments.
can’t argue with facts, so playskool insults it is. classy. no wonder I see he molding full of you getting posts and comments removed, and you’re totally banned form lemmy.world.
also explains this post https://lemmy.ml/post/2756876
I didn’t move any goal posts. I said Hawaii is an occupied territory, and you came back with BuT ThEy HaD a RefErEnduM. Forgetting to mention that the referendum wasn’t actually about independence and that the people of Hawaii were never given a choice of independence by their occupiers.
There is no false dichotomy here. It’s hilarious seeing your comment history where you communicate through memes like a 5 year old child.
People in Hawaii are revolting against your regime as we speak.
The facts are that you made false claim and now you don’t even have the decency to admit it. No point having further discussion with a liar.
love living rent free in your collective heads
“nuh-uh!” isn’t a very convincing argument. most people learn this when they’re 5.
see my previous reply
a handful of protesters is hardly a “revolt”, but you’re adorable for thinking “big”.
the last thing you have is a grasp on the facts. your comment an post history are proof enough of that, with a long history of bans, deleted comments, and verbally being drummed you of most places you visit or being a toxic mess.
how sad for you
Amazing that @[email protected], who is also a fan of those weird debate fallacy images, posted this in another thread today:
Also this, also from today:
You also posted that second one, verbatim, this afternoon as @[email protected].
You’re the same person, aren’t you?
Edit: Lol you even responded to an argument in this thread while still logged in to @[email protected], then deleted it because someone noticed.
Do feel free to articulate which goal posts you’re claiming that I moved. Be specific.
I did, it’s nonsensical.
Way to dismiss majority of the native population. I guess that’s what you’d expect from racist occupiers.
Wow interesting narrative you made up about me there. Maybe send me of whatever drugs you’re having while hallucinating these things, cause that sounds like some good shit.
Nah, it’s free entertainment for me kddio.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_the_Hawaiian_Kingdom
note the dates. it was forcibly annexed by a coup government. the later vote to join as a state took place well afterwards
the facts don’t support your assertions. even if they did, it’s irrelevant because….
just as I said and the facts I gave support. since 94% of people voted to become a state, no rational person would call it an “occupation”.
lmao you illiterate jackass. a sham vote to join a nation that overthrew your actual government by a bunch of people who moved there specifically to move the needle on that exact vote means nothing. christ, you liberals really love white nationalism as much as the flag fuckers do
says the troll
trolling is when you know more about history than your average liberal white supremacist
says the troll
Hi guys I’m sorry but this is one of my alts along with @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] and @[email protected]. They’re misbehaving and acting like a
True, just clarifying the best case scenario. Did the Hawaiian people recently vote to leave the union that I am unaware of?
When did they vote to join? They fought pretty hard to keep their rightfully elected government.
in 1959, with a 93%+ majority:
(source)
(source)
I think it’s more than a little dishonest to say that the native Hawaiians voted for this. At the time of this referendum, they composed about 15% of the population and their culture and identity had been suppressed for generations.
The US government even admitted in 1993 that the native people never agreed to this.
almost as dishonest as claiming is said something I didn’t and then moving the goalposts to win an argument…
irrelevant. sad, but irrelevant. thy got to vote, just like anyone else, and, even by your numbers, 2/3 of THAT population voted for statehood.
that’s not what that says, but it’s nice to know how easy it is for you to lie to try to get ahead in an argument. “winning” online debates must be very important for you.
Swarming lands with your settlers and then claiming b-but they muh voted for it, is peak lib cracker imperialism. The french did the same in New Caledonia.
Don’t forget about saying the settlers have a legitimate say on what happens to Hawaii.
so, when you can’t argue with facts, you rest to redefining words, personal insults, and racist slurs.
classy
I didn’t argue with you, I made clear statements about your nature and your character. Its up to you to change that and if you refuse, well thats just proves me right in the end.
93% of natives or all inhabitants?
as you can clearly see,
Not al residents are natives, right? So what % of natives voted in favor?
so, now you’re moving the goalposts because you didn’t like the answer…
Check title of this post. Do you see the word “native” there? In the title of this post that we’re commenting in? “Native”? You see it?
The discussion is about US OCCUPYING Hawaii. Imagine thinking that a referendum of the occupiers on whether they want to keep occupying is a valid way to decide whether people who have bee OCCUPIED agree with the occupation. It’s like if I moved into your house and put a gun to your head, and then ran a referendum to see if I should stay there.
The fact that you don’t understand how idiotic your argument is shows what an utter imbecile you are.