this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
8 points (55.6% liked)
World News
32324 readers
808 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
only if you intentionally take them out of context and twist the meaning. because they didn’t do that before the vote. as you said:
so, despite your obviously bad-faith and disingenuous argument, I’m not as stupid as you think I am. nice try.
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. NOR how much you try to twist my words.
Nice job replying on your other account first lol, are you in here upvoting yourself too?
They even use the same dumbass fallacy images. That is so sad and lame.
maybe a rogue lib AI escaped confinment 😂
you’re this desperate? wow
you’ll do anything but make a rational argument based on facts.
I dunno what to tell you dawg if you can't understand that a referendum of Hawaiian residents from 1959 doesn't represent the opinions of Native Hawaiians after 60 years of American control and immigration to the island. If you're so into facts and stats you should know a representative measure of their opinion could only be done through a survey of Native Hawaiians
even if it were relevant then it isn’t now just because you’re angry about… whatever.
well, why don’t you do that and come back when YOU have some relevant facts to present, and we can talk again.
Okay we're in a thread talking about how Native Hawaiians feel about the American government. I actually want to know why you are arguing this point and what you feel it accomplishes, in genuine good faith. Like are you Native Hawaiian, do you like in Hawaii, do you just like the idea of being able to visit Hawaii without a passport, or is there some other reason?
For me, I'm arguing this because I believe Indigenous people around the world have a right to self governance and freedom from colonial occupiers. So what's your reason?
due to your amnesia, I’ll remind you that this is how it started:
once the facts were presented, goalposts were moved to “native” Hawaiians because the argument couldn’t be “won" without that straw man, and I’ve been posting that out since.
I doubt that, as I’ve made this clear many, many times, and you keep ignoring it.
not only is my personal information irrelevant, I’d be pretty stupid to give someone like you any personal details that you’d very obviously weaponize against me at your first opportunity. as I’ve said before, I’m not as stupid as you think I am.
no, you’re here to “win” because you hate the US and think I’m your enemy. i've seen your comment history. I sonly presented facts and you and your cohorts don’t like the facts as they clash with your ideology, so you attack me rater than argue the facts rationally. It’s hostile, toxic bullying, and the mere suggestion that you’re interested in god-faith discussion outside of your own echo chamber is a joke.
Alright I tried doing this on your terms, peace
if that were true, you would have argued honestly, with the facts, and in good faith. I have demonstrated, many, many time, how you have not. again, you lie to comfort yourself against facts you refuse to accept.
best of luck with that.
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.