Hawai'ian Independence

[chipdip18]

Are you for or against it? Do you feel that the United States injustly occupied Hawai'i back in the late 1800's? Should Hawai'i be allowed to return it's original Monarchy or become a "Nation Within A Nation" like some Native American tribes?

[boykosaurus]

Hard to say, We did unjustly occupy and integrate that territory, but you can only reconcile and not reverse the past. I would not be against whatever Hawaii would want to do.

[chipdip18]

Yeah, but the recent decades show many leaders trying to push for independence, although with that issues of racism have arrisen, (native vs not native) but do you think that the US would really be willing to let Hawaii go?

[mattybobviously]

I'm a racist imperialist, keep 'em on lock down.

[timchoke]

Hey, where are the reparations for us Hawai'ians?! ;)

There was actually a proposal put through the Senate a few years back trying to get native Hawai'ians recognized as a Native American tribe. Obviously, that went swimmingly.

[mattmatumbo]

i thought we took all of the united states from native americans

[EasySkankin]

it's up to the hawaiian populace, it's their home.

however I don't see how it would be useful

[bung]

You know about the Mexican-American war? Yeah, all that land we acquired from that, Texas plus a shitload more, was all gotten unjustly. And I'm not really sure what land we have, as Americans, not gotten unjustly.

That said, I'm against it.

[thespearkid]

You know about the Mexican-American war? Yeah, all that land we acquired from that, Texas plus a shitload more, was all gotten unjustly. And I'm not really sure what land we have, as Americans, not gotten unjustly.

That said, I'm against it.
Depends on what your definition of the word "unjustly" is. That being said, if a significant portion of the population thinks it should be an independent nation once again, they should push legislation in their state senate and go from there.

[LastPlaceRocks]

You know about the Mexican-American war? Yeah, all that land we acquired from that, Texas plus a shitload more, was all gotten unjustly. And I'm not really sure what land we have, as Americans, not gotten unjustly.

That said, I'm against it.

The US paid for land in both the Louisiana and Gadsden Purchases - I'd call that legitimate.

Depends on what your definition of the word "unjustly" is. That being said, if a significant portion of the population thinks it should be an independent nation once again, they should push legislation in their state senate and go from there.
This would be the right way to do it, although if it went through then you would have to get into secession issues again.

[Neo Cassady]

Whether it's part of this country or not, I still want to visit it.

[sdbrown]

I thought Americans bought it from the monarchy?

[bung]

The US paid for land in both the Louisiana and Gadsden Purchases - I'd call that legitimate.


Oh, they paid for land from someone who stole it from someone else. Very legitimate.

The acquisition of Alaska is the closest thing to legitimacy, I would say.

[CrenshawPunch]

Let them go, and see how long they would remain "independent".

[chipdip18]

Depends on what your definition of the word "unjustly" is. That being said, if a significant portion of the population thinks it should be an independent nation once again, they should push legislation in their state senate and go from there.

I know there are several orgazinations in their home state that have tried, and i know that a bill was passed in the national senate, which keeps getting rejected.

I thought Americans bought it from the monarchy?


Nope.

[chipdip18]

it's up to the hawaiian populace, it's their home.

however I don't see how it would be useful


What do you mean by useful?

[LastPlaceRocks]

Oh, they paid for land from someone who stole it from someone else. Very legitimate.

The acquisition of Alaska is the closest thing to legitimacy, I would say.
Explain to me how the US buying Alaska from the Russians is more legitimate than the US purchasing a strip of land from Mexico.

Let them go, and see how long they would remain "independent".
Saying how their economy lies primarily upon tourism, as long as people continue to show up.

[Justin_stacy]

The Union should be a completely volunteer institution. If any state wishes to leave and form a singular nation or any aspect of a loose allinance, it shouldn't be hind by Washington. Personally I just don't see the citizens of Hawaii banding together with such an objective, unlike Texas, California or Alaska where it wouldn't be all that surprising since these states possess the resources and economies to be self sustaining.

[timchoke]

Actually, aside from Texas, I think Hawai'i would be the least surprising state to secede. Hawai'ians are fiercely proud of their history and heritage. Sadly, though, there are only one or two schools (on the Big Island) that still teach the native language.

[Justin_stacy]

But does the so called "native" population carry the weight to pull a vote of sucession, and out number the votes of the "western" population who would be less likely to share in their reasons for succession? With a state like Texas the vote would be based on political differences, economic weight and lack of bennefits. The case with Hawaii seems to be based on ethnicity and historic conflicts, which don't necassarily bring about the coehsion the Texas reasons do.

[I'm DC]

If it gets dependent, I am moving there in a heartbeat.

I don't really care if it does or not though.

[thespearkid]

The Union should be a completely volunteer institution. If any state wishes to leave and form a singular nation or any aspect of a loose allinance, it shouldn't be hind by Washington. Personally I just don't see the citizens of Hawaii banding together with such an objective, unlike Texas, California or Alaska where it wouldn't be all that surprising since these states possess the resources and economies to be self sustaining.
I understand why you say the union should be voluntary but I don't think any state that decides it wants to leave for any random reason should just be let go. It sets a dangerous precedent and could possibly lead to the larger states using secession as a bargaining chip in Congress.

[Justin_stacy]

I understand why you say the union should be voluntary but I don't think any state that decides it wants to leave for any random reason should just be let go. It sets a dangerous precedent and could possibly lead to the larger states using secession as a bargaining chip in Congress.

One would be hard pressed to get a population to rally behind some 'random reason,' but point taken. Though from the opposite perspective, what kind of precedent is set by a distant government forcing a population to stay aligned even when the population's wishes are elsewhere?

[thespearkid]

One would be hard pressed to get a population to rally behind some 'random reason,' but point taken. Though from the opposite perspective, what kind of precedent is set by a distant government forcing a population to stay aligned even when the population's wishes are elsewhere?
Hm. It's a complicated issue, for sure.

[Justin_stacy]

Hm. It's a complicated issue, for sure.

yep.......all the more interesting because the Union is at a strained point now, and will likely start to unravel during our life time.

[LastPlaceRocks]

I understand why you say the union should be voluntary but I don't think any state that decides it wants to leave for any random reason should just be let go. It sets a dangerous precedent and could possibly lead to the larger states using secession as a bargaining chip in Congress.
There already is precedent due to the Civil War and Texas v. White. Basically the court found secession is unconstitutional and illegal. The US doesn't recognize the state(s) as a sovereign nation; they are still part of the union but are being led astray by rebellious individuals.

[bung]

Explain to me how the US buying Alaska from the Russians is more legitimate than the US purchasing a strip of land from Mexico.


I'd say the amount of time that had passed since the indigenous people occupied or 'controlled' it. However, it all comes to perspective. If one should choose to see that fact as negligible, then in which case it's just as illegitimate as the other.

[chipdip18]

The Union should be a completely volunteer institution. If any state wishes to leave and form a singular nation or any aspect of a loose allinance, it shouldn't be hind by Washington. Personally I just don't see the citizens of Hawaii banding together with such an objective, unlike Texas, California or Alaska where it wouldn't be all that surprising since these states possess the resources and economies to be self sustaining.

Hawai'i may just end up as one of those poverty-stricken Pacific Island countries, but those people are happy in their simplicity. However, Hawai'i may be self-sustaining in the fact that they have a few universties there, so chances are people are smart enough to figure out a way. And is the Dole Company based in Hawai'i?

There already is precedent due to the Civil War and Texas v. White. Basically the court found secession is unconstitutional and illegal. The US doesn't recognize the state(s) as a sovereign nation; they are still part of the union but are being led astray by rebellious individuals.

If this is true then that is bull. If a state decided to secede from the Union, the Union shouldn't just pretend that the state isn't. If a whole state no longer participates and no longer claims to be associated with the Union then they should be treated as such.

[LastPlaceRocks]

If this is true then that is bull. If a state decided to secede from the Union, the Union shouldn't just pretend that the state isn't. If a whole state no longer participates and no longer claims to be associated with the Union then they should be treated as such.
It's true, look at Lincoln's speeches throughout his Presidency as well as Texas v. White. Not to say that it is or is not the right policy to undertake, but it's a smart strategic move on his end.

[chipdip18]

It's true, look at Lincoln's speeches throughout his Presidency as well as Texas v. White. Not to say that it is or is not the right policy to undertake, but it's a smart strategic move on his end.

Sure it may be a smart strategic move, but it is really close-minded.

[LastPlaceRocks]

So is seceding from the Union in order to keep enslaving a race of people (basically taking the ball and going home). It just depends on which side you are on.

[chipdip18]

So is seceding from the Union in order to keep enslaving a race of people (basically taking the ball and going home). It just depends on which side you are on.

The South and the North were like two seperate nations at the time. Slavery wasn't all of it, just a very important factor. It would have made sense for the South to be a seperate country.

[Fedaykin]

Saying how their economy lies primarily upon tourism, as long as people continue to show up.

But think about it: they would have to exploit their natural resources the tourist wish to see in order to build the infastructure necessary to become an independant nation: might they need to create and manufacture a new currency or some other such symbol of sovereignty?