6 ms·

I live in Hawaii and I'm not for either side, but I think you're unfairly smearing the opposition perspective. It's not "just because" that they oppose it. It r

I live in Hawaii and I'm not for either side, but I think you're unfairly smearing the opposition perspective. It's not "just because" that they oppose it. It relates to a long history of the overthrow of Hawaii and native people not having a say in how the place they have previously claimed as home is being used.

frostburg 4y ago
The native people of Hawaii were wronged, but this doesn't make those specific beliefs more valid than the evangelical "we don't need to care about global warming because Jesus is coming back any day now" argument.
causality0 4y ago
Which makes about as much sense as saying "We the collective British white people don't want anyone building mosques in London".
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- samus 4y ago
  The UK builds on a long history of private land ownership, a not quite so long history of religious and individual freedom, and an incomplete, but crucial separation of the state and the religious domain. These factors indeed run at odds with that statement. But native Hawaiians might have other ideas on how they want to use their land and prefer a collective decision making process.
  - causality0 4y ago
    Under what ownership scheme is it theirs? They don't own it legally and they don't own it by possession by living on it.
    - samus 4y ago
      That's exactly the point. It was theirs at some point. Nowadays, Hawaii is basically a colony of the USA.
      - cyberax 4y ago
        > It was theirs at some point. Was it? How far are you willing to go? To the Kingdom of Hawaii, created when a brutal monarch united the islands? Or to the previous era of warring chiefdoms? > Nowadays, Hawaii is basically a colony of the USA. This is such a BS. Hawaii is a full US state.
        samus 4y ago
        > This is such a BS. Hawaii is a full US state. It doesn't matter at all what exactly it is now. No human society has ever been a peaceful, utopian anarchy. That alone doesn't justify colonialism. This is just another case of "history is written by the winners" and a sign that the USA never respected Hawaiian sovereignty at all.
        cyberax 4y ago
        > This is just another case of "history is written by the winners" and a sign that the USA never respected Hawaiian sovereignty at all. So basically, you're saying that it was OK for the monarch to brutally unite the islands, and prior to that it was OK when warring clans practiced human sacrifice. But having Hawaii as a 50-th state, with its citizens enjoying all the privileges that the US provides, is "colonialism". I guess it's also "colonialism" that Hawaii is a net receiver of the Federal funds. Because that's exactly how colonial empires behave, they pour resources into colonies, right?
        samus 4y ago
        Whether the previous societies were barbaric according to our standards is utterly meaningless because this was not the reason Hawaii was annexed as a territory. Hawaii was annexed because the monarchy continued to not align itself with the interest of businessmen of mostly non-Hawaiian heritage. Also, already back then its strategic importance was recognized. The USA has successfully prevented both the UK and Japan from annexing it. Maybe colonialism is the wrong word, as Hawaii was spared of many of its evils, but it was certainly imperialism. States are not judged based on whether or not they are net receivers of federal funds. Quite the opposite: several states that are net receivers today tried to secede in the past. Finally, most of Hawaii's inhabitants nowadays are not of native Hawaiian origin. After contact, imported diseases decimated the population. Immigration from Asia and the US has done by the rest. Maybe the Hawaiians didn't suffer as much as the Native Americans from colonialism, but I still find the White Man's Burden to be a very poor justification.
cyberax 4y ago
> It relates to a long history No it doesn't. > but I think you're unfairly smearing the opposition perspective "My ignorance entitles me to free stuff" is a pretty good summary. > of the overthrow of Hawaii and native people not having a say in how the place they have previously claimed as home is being used. Native Hawaiians used Mauna Kea to mine stone tools ( https://www.nps.gov/places/mauna-kea-adz-quarry.htm https://www.nps.gov/places/mauna-kea-adz-quarry.htm ). There is no evidence that the summit of the mountain was used for cultural practices.

frostburg 4y ago

The native people of Hawaii were wronged, but this doesn't make those specific beliefs more valid than the evangelical "we don't need to care about global warming because Jesus is coming back any day now" argument.

causality0 4y ago

Which makes about as much sense as saying "We the collective British white people don't want anyone building mosques in London".

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
samus 4y ago
The UK builds on a long history of private land ownership, a not quite so long history of religious and individual freedom, and an incomplete, but crucial separation of the state and the religious domain. These factors indeed run at odds with that statement. But native Hawaiians might have other ideas on how they want to use their land and prefer a collective decision making process.
- causality0 4y ago
  Under what ownership scheme is it theirs? They don't own it legally and they don't own it by possession by living on it.
  - samus 4y ago
    That's exactly the point. It was theirs at some point. Nowadays, Hawaii is basically a colony of the USA.
    - cyberax 4y ago
      > It was theirs at some point. Was it? How far are you willing to go? To the Kingdom of Hawaii, created when a brutal monarch united the islands? Or to the previous era of warring chiefdoms? > Nowadays, Hawaii is basically a colony of the USA. This is such a BS. Hawaii is a full US state.
      - samus 4y ago
        > This is such a BS. Hawaii is a full US state. It doesn't matter at all what exactly it is now. No human society has ever been a peaceful, utopian anarchy. That alone doesn't justify colonialism. This is just another case of "history is written by the winners" and a sign that the USA never respected Hawaiian sovereignty at all.
        cyberax 4y ago
        > This is just another case of "history is written by the winners" and a sign that the USA never respected Hawaiian sovereignty at all. So basically, you're saying that it was OK for the monarch to brutally unite the islands, and prior to that it was OK when warring clans practiced human sacrifice. But having Hawaii as a 50-th state, with its citizens enjoying all the privileges that the US provides, is "colonialism". I guess it's also "colonialism" that Hawaii is a net receiver of the Federal funds. Because that's exactly how colonial empires behave, they pour resources into colonies, right?
        samus 4y ago
        Whether the previous societies were barbaric according to our standards is utterly meaningless because this was not the reason Hawaii was annexed as a territory. Hawaii was annexed because the monarchy continued to not align itself with the interest of businessmen of mostly non-Hawaiian heritage. Also, already back then its strategic importance was recognized. The USA has successfully prevented both the UK and Japan from annexing it. Maybe colonialism is the wrong word, as Hawaii was spared of many of its evils, but it was certainly imperialism. States are not judged based on whether or not they are net receivers of federal funds. Quite the opposite: several states that are net receivers today tried to secede in the past. Finally, most of Hawaii's inhabitants nowadays are not of native Hawaiian origin. After contact, imported diseases decimated the population. Immigration from Asia and the US has done by the rest. Maybe the Hawaiians didn't suffer as much as the Native Americans from colonialism, but I still find the White Man's Burden to be a very poor justification.

cyberax 4y ago

> It relates to a long history No it doesn't. > but I think you're unfairly smearing the opposition perspective "My ignorance entitles me to free stuff" is a pretty good summary. > of the overthrow of Hawaii and native people not having a say in how the place they have previously claimed as home is being used. Native Hawaiians used Mauna Kea to mine stone tools ( https://www.nps.gov/places/mauna-kea-adz-quarry.htm https://www.nps.gov/places/mauna-kea-adz-quarry.htm ). There is no evidence that the summit of the mountain was used for cultural practices.