re: Did the US conquer and oppress Hawaii?

In 1993, Congress issued an apology to the people of Hawaii for the U.S. government’s role in the overthrow and acknowledged that “the native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty.” And, since 2000, Senator Daniel K. Akaka of Hawaii, who is soon to retire, has repeatedly proposed to Congress the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, also known as the Akaka Bill, which would extend sovereignty to 400,000 native Hawaiians.

In 2005, The Times described the bill: “The measure would give [Native Hawaiians] equivalent legal standing to American Indians and native Alaskans and lead to the creation of a governing body that would make decisions on [their] behalf … The governing body would also have the power to negotiate with federal and state authorities over the disposition of vast amounts of land and resources taken by the United States when the islands were annexed in 1898.”

Supporters say the bill is necessary to protect native culture and redress Hawaiians for past injustices. Opponents say the bill is unworkable and would create a racially divided state.

What are your thoughts on legislation that gives native Hawaiians more control over the land, culture and resources of the islands? Given your understanding of history, would you support or oppose a bill that grants more autonomy to native Hawaiians? Why?

quote:

---

this was not an invasion...it was good faith bargaining by investors and dumb selfish moves by the local leaders

---

Ignorant post



On Jan. 17, 1893, Hawaii’s monarchy was overthrown when a group of businessmen and sugar planters forced Queen Liliuokalani to abdicate. The coup led to the dissolving of the Kingdom of Hawaii two years later, its annexation as a U.S. territory and eventual admission as the 50th state in the union.


In 1874, David Kalakaua became king and sought to reduce the power of the white Missionary Party (later Reform Party) in the government. In 1887, angered by King Kalakaua’s extravagant spending and his attempts to dilute their power, a small group of Missionary Party members, known as the Hawaiian League, struck back against the king.

Led by Lorrin A. Thurston and Sanford B. Dole, the Hawaiian League drafted a new constitution that reduced the power of the king and increased the power of the cabinet and Legislature. It also extended voting rights to wealthy noncitizens, while excluding Asians and restricting access for native Hawaiians through land-owning and literacy provisions. Backed by a militia, the group used the threat of violence to force King Kalakaua to sign the constitution, which became known as the Bayonet Constitution.

quote:

---

not at all

what "conquered" them was the appeal of western religion and values.

Eventually their leaders sold out the natives and the whites ended up with all the best land for agriculture

this was not an invasion...it was good faith bargaining by investors and dumb selfish moves by the local leaders

---

Pretty much. It's kinda like claiming Manhattan was conquered and oppressed as opposed to bought for a handful of shiny trinkets.

quote:

---

Did the US conquer and oppress Hawaii?
it seems they didnt want to be annexed.

---

Prolly. The actual question is what to do about it now. I doubt straw huts and no modern medicine or air conditioning is a preferable alternative to 'Murica as we know it, which is to say: What are you gonna do, "return the land" and go back to no technology and not being tried by a jury of one's peers? Because that's America, and I'd rather be here than the socialist Europe my ancestors came from.

Somewhere between self abasing white guilt and "'Murica frick yeah," lies the equilibrium of reasonable people. They're a dying breed.

quote:

---

Antarctica has never had an indigenous population.

---

Then why do the fraking Aliens always land there?

quote:

---

congrats on copying and pasting some cherry picked facts

---

It's worked for me up to this point, why change now?

quote:

---

Proven, doubtful.

---

So is it your assertion that Antarctica broke off from Pangaea and moved to its present location within the last 300,000 years?

quote:

---

it seems they didnt want to be annexed.

---

Shouldn't have had open borders then