Domestic Insurgents—Not Protesters—Seized Control of Iolani Palace Yesterday
| AR Articles on Non-White Pressure Groups |
|---|
| Pushing Out Whitey (Mar. 2000) |
| Malicious Intent: Two White Cops Sacrificed (Oct. 2000) |
| Chavis Chagrined (Sep. 1994) |
| Search AmRen.com for Non-White Pressure Groups |
| More news stories on Non-White Pressure Groups |
On April 30, some 70 unarmed Hawaiian Kingdom Government personnel seized control of a historic, state-owned palace not more than a stone’s throw away from the 76 legislators, governor and lieutenant governor and thousands of state employees working in the State Capitol.
Claiming to be the legitimate government of Hawaii, the HKG personnel declared that Iolani Palace was theirs and that they were taking back control of Hawaii.
As chains were shackled around the gates of Iolani Palace and HKG personnel walked in circuits around the spacious park grounds in black BDU pants and aloha shirts like sentries, nearly every local and national media outlet referred to them as protesters. But truly, what were they protesting?
In speaking with the Hawaiian Kingdom Government representatives, I got the impression that they weren’t protesting but rather attempting to launch a bloodless coup d’etat in which the people of Hawaii would rally to them against the legitimate governance of the State of Hawaii and the United States of America.
It’s an irrefutable fact that on June 27, 1959, the Territory of Hawaii voted on three propositions, the first of which asked, “Shall Hawaii immediately be admitted into the Union as a State?” 132,773 people voted yes to Proposition One, and only 7,971 voted no.
{snip}
Those who claim that Hawaii lost sovereignty must face the fact that any dispute between the Hawaiian people and the supposedly “evil” American government could have been settled on June 27, 1959 by the Hawaiian people voting no to all three propositions. It was not.
The people who resist recognizing this historic, democratic decision through actions such as those taken by the Hawaiian Kingdom Government in capturing Iolani Palace are not protesters, but are domestic insurgents who rage against the majority will of not just Hawaii, but the United States of America of which this state is part of.
{snip}
While some may argue that the people who seized Iolani Palace yesterday were sheepish and nonviolent, ultimately this attempted bloodless coup by HKG will serve to inspire the more hostile and violent opponents of the State of Hawaii and the United States of America to follow suit with actions that involve more than just chains and yellow “No Trespassing” signs.
The message that our local authorities have projected is that it is not only okay to take control of buildings, but that sedition goes unpunished and carries no deterrent in the State of Hawaii. Today, we face people who chain a building. What will happen if tomorrow gunmen attack the Capitol, Washington Place, or Honolulu Hale and take hostages?
{snip}
We need to treat groups like HKG and others blooming around Hawaii like domestic insurgents and put their names on the National Terrorist Screening Database. When we see them taking control of Iolani Palace and other government facilities, we shouldn’t call them “protesters” we should call them “terrorists” and deal with them the same way we’d deal with al Qaeda operatives taking over one of our buildings.
{snip}
[Editor’s Note: See yesterday’s article on the seizure of Iolani Palace here.]
(Posted on May 2, 2008)
Comments
“Claiming to be the legitimate government of Hawaii, the HKG personnel declared that Iolani Palace was theirs and that they were taking back control of Hawaii.”
If it were up to me, they could have the humid hell hole, if they would take about 10 million blacks from the mainland.
Posted by Robert Kelly at 6:10 PM on May 2
Why don’t the citizens of Hawaii just have another vote on whether or not to stay in the Union? Maybe the majority of Hawaiians don’t want to to lose the perks they get from being in the Union? If they secede then they will be responsible for Everything. No more cash from the taxpayers of the rest of the U.S. No more subsidies, pork, welfare, earmarks…nothing. I think the bulk of Hawaiians understand this, especially the government types. I don’t think these “domestic insurgents” have really thought beyond kicking out the “evil” American government.
Posted by idareya at 6:46 PM on May 2
In fairness, these types of uprisings occcur on Native American reservations now and then, and they are ultimately revealed to be meaningless.
Posted by at 8:06 PM on May 2
Do we really care? When I was in grade school, there were only 48 states. I thought that was enough.
Posted by (one who leaves out "one nation" and "indivisible" from the Pledge at 8:20 PM on May 2
I don’t dispute the writer’s points, but I still say it was a bad mistake to make Hawaii a state.
Posted by at 8:35 PM on May 2
Let ‘em have it. (The islands, I mean.) If they think that tourists are going to want to come to an island in the grips of a revolution, they’re crazy. If they think the big hotels will stay put when their local economy crashes even harder than the mainland, they’re crazy. If they think that other nations will advance them credit, they’re crazy. Who’s going to supply them with fuel and food? They have no domestic industry other than marijuana production and tourism. And if they think that the Chinese will come in and hold hands and sing “Kumbaya,” they’re crazy.
Who’ putting them up to this? In an insurgency as in an assassination, it’s not who fires the bullet, but who pays for it.
Posted by Wild Eyed Charlie at 9:06 PM on May 2
This is one of the great advantages of diversity.
Posted by at 9:14 PM on May 2
Daniel P. de Gracia II is correct.
The Sovereignty movement will continue to push until they get a violent response-a response that will polarize the three major tribes of Hawaii. This is what the FLN did in Algeria…keep pushing until the police are overwhelmed, the paratroopers arrive, and everyone is in a rage.
Best nip this in the bud…jail them! The Federal Government has a constitutional obligation to provide protection against all enemies-foreign and domestic.
Hawaii is not like Puerto Rico. Should Puerto Rico be cast from the Union the non-white people in the States will get a message that whites are tired of subsidizing them. Latin America, especially Mexico, will be on notice to prepare for the overdue border wall, an adjustment to NAFTA, birthright citizenship, etc.
Should Hawaii be set free the signal sent will be different. Copycats will spring up on every Indian Reservation, causing un-needed grief and the Raza crowd in the Southwest could get ideas.
Additionally, there are ripple effects to an independent Hawaii that are not mentioned anywhere and were over the word count on my submission for this month’s AR article.
1. There are islands near Hawaiian Chain, Midway Island, Johnson Atoll, etc. that are not part of the State but are US territories. An independent Hawaii will change the geo-strategic relationships in the Central Pacific-look for a Falklands Islands/Spanish Sahara type conflict should Hawaii leave the Union.
2. The Pacific is an OK neighborhood, but still has its troublesome residents and issues. Fiji, the Solomon Islands, East Timor, Indonesia, the Spratley Islands, New Caledonia are all wild, Third Worldish problem centers. Great Powers cruise in the area too. For example, France conducted nuclear testing in the S. Pacific in 1995. In this mix, an independent Hawaii could create a power vacuum that will get filled. China and Japan could get themselves worked up for some trouble. Even New Zealand participated in aggressive expansions into the area during the First World War. Why un-bottle more potential trouble?
3. An independent Hawaii, no matter what leaders in the Sovereignty Movement think will quickly become a failed state. The “Kingdom” will not run well enough to keep piracy down or foreign powers out. Whites almost outnumber Natives right now, swelling their numbers and organizing them into a bloc vote is the ounce of prevention to a far worse illness and cure.
Whatever the case, hard thinking on the Hawaii situation will be needed. Hard thinking is far better than hard fighting.
Times in the 50th State could get interesting….we might already be too late.
Posted by Duncan Hengest at 9:27 PM on May 2
Anything that brings about the dissolution of the empire, I am for. If at first you don’t secede, try try again.
Posted by at 9:30 PM on May 2
“Maybe the majority of Hawaiians don’t want to to lose the perks they get from being in the Union?”
I have a feeling the Chinese and Japanese will finance Hawaii in exchange for some perks and security agreements.
Posted by at 9:32 PM on May 2
One thing the editorial called for is increased security.
“We also need to dramatically increase the security presence around our Capitol.
At best, security at the Hawaii State Capitol District can be described as shockingly lax. There are no entry control points to screen individuals, no concrete barricades to prevent car bombers, no x-ray machines, no metal detectors, no regular foot patrols by Honolulu Police or State Police.”
That is EXACTLY what the insurgents want. An environment where the pillars of government are barricaded away from the people is where insurgencies thrive. Think of the Green Zone.
It is better to jail the people in the HKG and then bulldoze the palace to remove a focal point of opposition.
No matter what direction this movement goes, whites will always rule over non-whites somewhere and somehow. Better start thinking about how to do it.
Posted by Duncan Hengest at 10:04 PM on May 2
Duncan Hengest:
Should Hawaii be set free the signal sent will be different. Copycats will spring up on every Indian Reservation, causing un-needed grief and the Raza crowd in the Southwest could get ideas.
Howard in Las Vegas:
“Copycats” on every reservation? Sir, Indian reservations are empty or filled with alcoholics and drug-addicts. They are not going to revolt.
Duncan Hengest:
1)There are islands near Hawaiian Chain, Midway Island, Johnson Atoll, etc. that are not part of the State but are US territories. An independent Hawaii will change the geo-strategic relationships in the Central Pacific-look for a Falklands Islands/Spanish Sahara type conflict should Hawaii leave the Union.
Howard in Las Vegas:
Who would fight for these islands? WW2 is over. The Emperor is dead. China will not risk war with America for these meaningless islands.
Duncan Hengest writes:
2. The Pacific is an OK neighborhood, but still has its troublesome residents and issues. Fiji, the Solomon Islands, East Timor, Indonesia, the Spratley Islands, New Caledonia are all wild, Third Worldish problem centers. Great Powers cruise in the area too. For example, France conducted nuclear testing in the S. Pacific in 1995. In this mix, an independent Hawaii could create a power vacuum that will get filled. China and Japan could get themselves worked up for some trouble. Even New Zealand participated in aggressive expansions into the area during the First World War. Why un-bottle more potential trouble?
Howard in Las Vegas writes:
So if America gives up Hawaii there will be some sort of WW3 for the Pacific islands. So what. What difference would it make? The White race has more important issues to attend to. All that money we save governing these ingrateful people could go to White couples having babies.
Posted by Howard in Las Vegas at 10:19 PM on May 2
Anybody who suggests we should just give up Hawaii just because a few “jack-booted”, aloha shirt, wearing militant thugs marched around whining about “losing their kingdom” is missing the point. Hawaii for better or worse IS a state of this country. Not defending the lawful property rights of citizens of this country by capitulating to these pitiful excuses for rebels, sends the wrong message, that yet again, if you stomp your feet the white folk run-away with their tails between their legs.
Hawaii is such a polyglot of different races, that saying you’re Hawaiian is just a matter of having brown skin. They are not the majority, they are not a pure race, and have no current claim to the land.
Enough is enough. Its time to take a stand against this minority based tyranny that seems to be winning by virtue of apathy.
Posted by plzopenyoeyes at 10:54 PM on May 2
“Those who claim that Hawaii lost sovereignty must face the fact that any dispute between the Hawaiian people and the supposedly “evil” American government could have been settled on June 27, 1959 by the Hawaiian people voting no to all three propositions. It was not.”
Pay attention folks. What the U.S. did in Hawaii was overthrow the legitimate government and then bring in multitudes of foreigners. Only after native Hawaiians were a small minority in their own lands was democracy an option. After whites are minorities in Europe, how would y’all feel about such democracy? After Muslims constitute 60% of the Netherlands, would y’all accept a referendum like this:
“Shall the Netherlands be ruled by Sharia?”. If, at that point, a majority votes “yes”, would such a vote be legitimate in your eyes?
Native peoples should almost always take precedence because it’s their land and they have no other land.
Posted by jewamongyou at 1:22 AM on May 3
“Native peoples should almost always take precedence because it’s their land and they have no other land.”
Posted by jewamongyou at 1:22 AM on May 3
The problem, dear friend, is that there is no where in the world where the supposedly “native” peoples are really the original native people. Today’s black Africans originated from only a very small region of West Africa, spread out from there exterminating and stealing the lands of the Pygmies and especially the Bushmen, the original “native” inhabitants of 95% of sub-Sahara Africa. Today’s Mongol origin American Indians exterminated and stole the lands of the original Caucasoid inhabitants of the Americas (e.g. Kennewick Man). Even the Japanese are not the “native” inhabitants of Japan: The Caucasoid Ainu were the original natives of Japan, but were overrun, slaughtered and their lands stolen by the present day Japanese: Are you suggesting that the Ainu should get Japan back?
No, there must be a “statute of limitations”: That statute runs out when all the original peoples involved are dead and gone. One person shouldn’t get an unearned reward just because of who his long dead and gone ancestors were or have rights to lord over others who don’t have the “right” long dead ancestors.
As far as Europe is concerned, it is up to the living Europeans today to defend their lands today, before it is too late, and not let the leftwing traitors in their midst allow a flood of hostile destructive unproductive African invaders to steal their lands and ethnically and culturally destroy them, especially when Africans are quickly ethnically cleansing the few remaining Europeans left in Africa.
Posted by at 2:51 AM on May 3
If Hawaii had not been a territory of the U.S. it would today be a colony of Imperial Japan, and the Hawaiians would have suffered the same horrific fate that others did who fell under Imperial Japanese rule: From the Koreans, to the Chinese, to the Philippines.
Hawaiians can thank their very survival to the U.S.
Posted by at 2:57 AM on May 3
I think many of you guys have it all wrong. What is this nonsense about “their” land? Some people here take things too far and/or literally. When we speak of a race’s homeland, it does not mean that you can violate property rights of indigenous or non-indigenous people. Secession is the right of all of humanity which goes for goes for non-Whites too! You cannot be logically consistent and say secession for racial reasons is good in one part of the world for Whites, but not good in another part of the world for non-Whites. There is not going to be any massacre of Whites in Hawaii anyway. And why is everyone suddenly worried about the U.S. strategic positioning? Isn’t this the same government that wants White people to shrink to a small number and yet you want the U.S. government to stay in power?!
Posted by Gaurav Ahuja at 8:11 AM on May 3
Only 1 week ago, I read the latest issue of American Renaissance. And what was the cover story?
Why, an in-depth article by Duncan Hengest on Hawaiian racial consciousness and its potential to inflame a separatist coup! Now, only a week later and the prediction comes true!
American Renaissance is truly on the cutting edge of what’s happening in the world today. The major media outlets would do well to take this magazine and it’s writers seriously.
Posted by Bannister at 2:10 PM on May 3
What Jewamongyou is inadvertantly suggesting is that she be removed to Palestine, while I - 1/16 Tukarora and 1/8 Cherokee be allowed to remain in North America.
A certain politician in Europe once also proposed that native people should have special rights, and non-natives forcibly removed by any means necessary. In doing so, that individual gave the US the atomic bomb:
Albert Einstein: Jewish.
Edward Teller Jewish.
Leo Szilard: Jewish.
Robert Oppenheimer: Jewish.
Enrico Fermi: Italian Chistian with a Jewish wife.
My only problem with these Hawaiian seccesionists is that they want it both ways: independence but with plenty of goodies funded by the haole taxpayer. Doubtless the Aztlan seccessionists think in the same terms.
Posted by Michael C. Scott at 3:33 PM on May 3
Anonymous at 2:51 wrote:
“No, there must be a “statute of limitations”: That statute runs out when all the original peoples involved are dead and gone.”
The Native Hawaiians are not yet all dead and gone. Therefore, according to your own criterion, they should still have rights to their native lands. I do agree with you, in principal though. We must draw the line somewhere. In the case of Hawaii, that line has not yet been drawn, their sovereignty having been lost barely 100 years ago.
Posted by jewamongyou at 5:28 PM on May 3
Let them have it.
That would remove Hawaii’s two anti-white senators and representatives from congress.
We’ll save tons of money by closing all the various military installations.
Plus various transfer payments to the natives.
Posted by mderpelding at 6:08 PM on May 3
A certain politician in Europe once also proposed that native people should have special rights, and non-natives forcibly removed by any means necessary. In doing so, that individual gave the US the atomic bomb:
Albert Einstein: Jewish.
Edward Teller Jewish.
Leo Szilard: Jewish.
Robert Oppenheimer: Jewish.
Enrico Fermi: Italian Chistian with a Jewish wife.
My only problem with these Hawaiian seccesionists is that they want it both ways: independence but with plenty of goodies funded by the haole taxpayer. Doubtless the Aztlan seccessionists think in the same terms.
Posted by Michael C. Scott at 3:33 PM on May 3
“That” politician did not give America the Atomic bomb. “That” politician was using the intelligence of Swedish scientist to create an Atomic bomb. America simple stole the secrets and the scientists.
Posted by Howard in Las Vegas at 8:24 PM on May 3
I won’t try to make a judgement call on this one. But, I would like to say as far as breaking the law is concerned, our government breaks the law everyday. Fed, state, local, and all branches break the law and commit treason against us and the country. So, until we start holding their feet to the fire, well, you know…………..
Posted by at 8:34 PM on May 3
“The Native Hawaiians are not yet all dead and gone.”
Posted by jewamongyou at 5:28 PM on May 3
What I am referring to by “dead and gone” are those alive when the original conflict occurred.
Posted by at 8:56 PM on May 3
Let them go. I would be interesting to see how they survive. Just about everything they have has to be imported from the Mainland. Within a few months they’d be begging for foreign aid, which I’m sure the Chinese would be more than happy to extend in return for the right to occupy the Islands so as to have bases within closer striking distance to our West coast.
Absent that, they would have to return to the traditional culture that existed before their first encounter with the evil White man. That might even include a return to cannibalism.
Posted by at 1:31 AM on May 4
LNN: a sign of the times, Facts: non-westerners are becoming more violent against the west and its people, fact, ever day non-westerners kills thousands of Westerners due to race and anti-white goals of the world socialist movement, fact, American anger over this blatant act of disrespect and racism on the part of minority groups is growing, and last but not least, fact, Americans gun ownership has increased, 300% in the last year alone, mostly in California. Even I own a gun!
Posted by at 7:37 AM on May 4
At least this is more evidence that ethno-nationalism is alive and well? So, it’s also more cracks in the White blind belief of deified diversity too.
Posted by factualist at 10:04 AM on May 4
I understand Guam is the next primary/caucus in the Democratic Party campaigns for President of the United States. (This should never happen. Guam is by no means one of the fifty states.) They already had the contest in Puerto Rico….also not a state of the union. (Puerto Rico had a vote to decide on statehood and the people voted to keep it the way it is….unlike Hawaii. So there should be no vote in Puerto Rico. Next thing you know, they will be sending delegates from Panama, South Korea, Taiwan, Diego Garcia, the Phillipines, and Gitmo. They even intend to allow the District of Columbia to act like a state too.
The Federal Union is made up of states….period.
Posted by Memphomaniac at 10:37 AM on May 4
Anonymous at 8:56 wrote:
“What I am referring to by “dead and gone” are those alive when the original conflict occurred.”
Aside from seeming rather arbitrary one must also ask what constitutes “conflict”. It could easily be argued that Native Hawaiians never really gave up their struggle for independence. Their struggle against U.S. imperial forces was never bloody to begin with so “struggle” in this context could not mean outright war.
Posted by jewamongyou at 12:19 PM on May 4
“My only problem with these Hawaiian seccesionists is that they want it both ways: independence but with plenty of goodies funded by the haole taxpayer. Doubtless the Aztlan seccessionists think in the same terms.”
Most of the time, haoles have agreed with these sentiments. Whites, after all, cooked up the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The secessionists look at the precedents, and assume, with good reason, that the goodies (transfer payments) will continue.
White man will not cut the flow for reasons of principle, but only because the economy cannot run on fumes forever.
Posted by uncle cremus at 2:21 PM on May 4
“…Isn’t this the same government that wants White people to shrink to a small number and yet you want the U.S. government to stay in power?!…”
Posted by Gaurav Ahuja at 8:11 AM on May 3
I do not want the USG as it currently exists to stay in power.
I do not want a government that encourages and supports flooding this nation with crime-prone, un-skilled, un-educated Third World immigrants—immigrants who are not compatible with a First World nation, who cannot feed, clothe or house themselves without massive government aid (at the expense of the native population), often demanding welfare handouts and services into several generations.
I do not want a government that supports allowing non-compatible immigrants to demographically change the areas where they settle, through massive ‘family reunification’ and anchor babies, displacing and ethnically cleansing entire states of its White population.
I do not want a government that passes laws giving certain race and ethnic groups special favors (hate crimes laws, affirmative action) that allow them to legally run roughshod over Whites—locking them out of jobs (no Whites need apply), college admissions, internships and scholarships. Also, allowing non-Whites to freely denigrate and debase Whites at will with impunity—while any White who DARES to speak in the same manner against non-Whites is in grave danger of losing his job, pension and will be prosecuted for ‘hate speech.’
I do not want a government that supports a K-12 school curriculum that explicitly teaches children that Whites are the scourge of the earth, are responsible for ALL non-Whites’ problems (and must PAY), must hand over massive amounts of money for reparations for slavery, that Whites will rise as a Fourth Reich unless diluted sufficiently—and that ANY vestige of White heritage must be wiped out, specifically in the South, but elsewhere wherever it manifests itself . I also highly resent curricula that states that the Founding Fathers are mere dead White men who either owned slaves or supported slavery and therefore they and their ideas MUST be scorned.
I do not want a government that meddles in the affairs of other countries, puts its own people in harm’s way, bombs innocent foreign populations at will, and squanders the nation’s treasure and young people for stupid causes (Vietnam, Iraq).
I am sure others on this board have their legitimate grievances as well—I’ve only scratched the surface of what this country’s leaders have done (and plan to do) to the country’s founding population. And the situation is not looking good what with the current crop of presidential hopefuls—which one will take us down the slowest road to hell (to quote the late Libertarian leader Harry Browne)?
Who was asking why Whites are no longer having children in such an anti-White climate—sanctioned by the government?
Remember: As Pat Buchanan writes: Demographics is Destiny. Anyone who doesn’t believe that, consider California which is now being run (into the ground) by elected, economically ignorant Mexican socialists in Sacramento who only care about taking care of their own—and it looks like there will be no turning back.
Bon
Posted by BonBon at 3:52 PM on May 4
Imagine if whites in Europe or in Australia or whereever were militant and took back parts of country? It’d be all over the news!
Posted by at 9:41 PM on May 4
“…It could easily be argued that Native Hawaiians never really gave up their struggle for independence….”
Posted by jewamongyou at 12:19 PM on May 4
In the case of Hawaii the issue ended when an overwhelming majority of Hawaiians (meaning those living there at the time), including a MAJORITY of what you call “native” Hawaiians, voted FOR statehood.
Now, as far as who constitutes a “native” Hawaiian now: It is anyone, of any race, who was BORN there. Why should one person BORN there have MORE rights than another person BORN there, just because of ancestry? All this was relevant when the only people BORN there were those “native” Hawaiians. But that is no longer the case. The VAST majority of native Hawaiians today (meaning born there) are not “native” Hawaiians in the sense you are talking about. So all that argument is moot now. Irrelevant. The statute of limitations has expired.
In any case, the matter is not as simplistic as you are making it. Many “native Hawaiians” are not “pure”. What percent makes you part of this privileged class? 1%? 10% 100%? And who sets those rules and on what basis? And what about the fact that MOST “native Hawaiians” today weren’t even born in Hawaii or even living there, but are living here in the continental 49 states? And not ALL “native” Hawaiians want Hawaii to succeed from the U.S. (and all the privileges and opportunities that offers, including the right to live and work in any of its 50 states, not restricted to some small islands). Why do you allow only the most militant to speak for ALL “native” Hawaiians?
Too much time has passed: Think of all the bloodshed and tragedy in the world caused by those who make ancient grievances between people long dead and gone their own, and assign hapless others living today to play the role of their “enemies”.
Here is an example of the violent race-hate (at the publicly financed University of Hawaii in this case) engendered by the mentality you are trying to justify:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2246
Posted by at 11:21 PM on May 4
The parallel would be government representatives coming to your house, killing everyone there but you, and moving in 15 or so government workers to just hang out. They’d trash your furniture, raid your kitchen, and take anything that strikes their fancy. If you protest—telling them to get out—they’d offer to put it to a vote, which would come down to you versus those 15 new guys hanging out there.
I know I’d resent a situation like that.
Well it’s a clumsy parallel, but it works, because that sense of indignation, of violation, and injustice that you’d feel from people annexing into your home *cough* patriot act *cough* might give you a little bit of insight into how a lot of the native people of Hawai’i might feel.
I’m not offering a solution—because there’s no easy one (although, nonviolent protest and civil disobedience is not the WORST way to begin things.) What I noticed, reading through a lot of this is a remarkable lack of sympathy with sovereignty activists. I’m not saying you have to agree, but maybe some earlier commentators might benefit from stepping out of red state of their own minds and approach the situation differently.
Posted by Insouciant at 2:30 AM on May 5
Who can blame them for wanting to secede? I wish more states felt that way. We could establish enclaves of mono-cultures separated by borders. Heaven on earth.
Posted by Sensitivity Trainer at 12:19 PM on May 5
Letting Hawaii into the Union was a mistake. It added two automatic liberal votes to the US Senate. The same will happen if dysfunctional Puerto Rico is granted statehood.
Posted by at 2:01 PM on May 5
Bad analogy, Insouciant, as nobody has “trashed” Hawaii. If anyone had, the very lucrative tourist industry would not exist. Are you suggesting that it was Polynesians who built the airports, hospitals and schools in Hawaii, and who introduced profitable export crops like pineapples - native to South America, coffee - native to east Africa, and sugar cane - native to east Asia, and bad old whitey jut came there to “hang out?”
Hawaiians were caught between an esablished Pacfic power, Britain, and three growing ones: the USA, Japan and Germany. They should be happy it wasn’t Japan; Korea and Taiwan exerienced colonial rule by Japan and didn’t enjoy the experince.
Posted by at 4:59 PM on May 5
Do we really care? When I was in grade school, there were only 48 states. I thought that was enough.
Really. Who says we have to have the same number of states? It’s a voluntary union that will naturally change up and down in numbers.
Posted by at 8:24 PM on May 5
“The parallel would be government representatives coming to your house, killing everyone there but you, and moving in 15 or so government workers to just hang out. …”
Posted by Insouciant at 2:30 AM on May 5
The problem with your “analogy” is that it bears NO resemblance to what happened in Hawaii.
And why don’t you apply that analogy to the Hawaiians themselves: The Polynesian settlers of Hawaii were not a monolith but composed of many different tribes: And their history is a endless history of bloody warfare involving attacking and slaughtering other tribes and stealing their land. The Europeans were far more benign.
Posted by at 11:11 PM on May 5
If you want an example of Pacific island being damaged by contact with the West, Insouciant, the Hawaiian chain isn’t even in the running. It’s Guam. The brown tree snake, Boiga irregularis was accidently introduced there from Australia or New Guinea sometime in the 1950s, and is now busy wiping out native bird species.
It was a tragic accident, and nobody meant for it to happen. It manifestly was NOT caused by a bunch of whites who decided, “Let’s wipe out dozens of bird species found nowhere else.” In fact, this snake has been federaly banned from import into the US, even for zoos and university herpetologcal professors. Animals commony stow away on ships, rats being particularly successful at this. *Polynesian humans* have been a destructive invasive species on Pacifc islands; who do you think made the moa extinct on New Zealand? The Maoris, that’s who.
If you want to “trash” an ecosystem, introdce a superpredator, like Boiga irregularis… or Homo sapiens.
Posted by Michael C. Scott at 6:57 PM on May 6