Native Hawaiians fighting back

SouthernN'Proud

Southern Discomfort
Basic info on the Senate bill

I heard a bit about this bill a few days ago. I want to learn more about it.

From what I understand thus far, this bill would pick up where a Senate Apology left off. The Apology is on Congressional record, and therein the United States government formally and officially recognizes the fact that they illegally and without warrant or justification invaded the Kingdom of Hawaii, overthrew an established functioning government, and assumed control of the territory. This bill provides for the reassumption of power by native Hawaiians. A native Hawaiian is defined as anyone with one drop of verifiable Hawaiian blood in their body. A period of time would be established wherein natives may document their status and then be granted the right to vote on this issue.

What issue is that, you ask?

Secession from the United States. Based on the illegal and improper method of acquuisition of the territory in question.

See where I'm headed with all this yet?

The bill, again as I understand it at this point, also provides for a number of what equates to "tribes" of Americans who may or may not fall under similar circumstances. They may be previously recognized groups, forinstance, Cherokee Indians, or they may be previously unrecognized groups.

Now, many people (myself emphatically included) maintain that the War of Northern Aggression was an illegal overthrow of an established government...one with the power to collect tax revenue, to enact and enforce laws, to engage in commerce, to establish and support a military...every identifiable function of any other government. Should this legislation pass, and if my interpretation of it is correct I obviously hope and pray that it does, I forsee something that's 140 years overdue...the reinstatement of the Confederate States of America.

How many people have a verifiable drop of Southern blood in their veins? Of those, how many woulf leap at the chance to get out from under Washington's skyrocketing debt and start afresh?

I know one who will be on the phone the instant that gavel falls.

I think it bears discussion on any number of fronts. Again, I have not fully researched this piece of proposed legislation, not nearly to the level I usually do when postulating about all things Southern. Just curious if anyone else had heard anything about it.

Deo vindice. Maybe right soon.
 
The difference is, there was a war in the South's case, and y'all lost.
The Hawaiians, and the Natives had no such thing.

It'll be interesting what comes out of it in any case.
 
Leslie said:
The difference is, there was a war in the South's case, and y'all lost.
The Hawaiians, and the Natives had no such thing.

It'll be interesting what comes out of it in any case.

so there was no stong-arming at all? hmmm...
 
Apologists be damned. What happened happened & is over. I ain't paying reparations to ANYBODY.
 
Gonz said:
Apologists be damned. What happened happened & is over. I ain't paying reparations to ANYBODY.

No, Mississippi and the rest of the Confederacy already did that. Then were forced back at gunpoint. Then their senators were denied access to Congressional votes.

THAT much is recorded history. Research it all you like...I have.
 
If the Hawaiians what a fight I say give 'em one
we rolled over the Republican guard
I'm sure the Army of the Republic of Hawaii
could be defeated by a cub scout troop!

Give up the 50th state without a fight no way José'
 
Aside from Winky's dubius response, the only question is this...If we give back Hawaii, shouldn't we give back everything else, too? It's not just the South I'm talking about...there are plenty of treaties with Native American's that have been broken, so what about them?
 
Gato_Solo said:
Aside from Winky's dubius response, the only question is this...If we give back Hawaii, shouldn't we give back everything else, too? It's not just the South I'm talking about...there are plenty of treaties with Native American's that have been broken, so what about them?
It all belongs to us because we can take it!

Sequoiah (hope I spelled that right) actually sued the gov't. and won. Unfortunately for him, he

a. Wasn't white.

and
b. Chose land that was more valuable than heathen life. :lol:
(I always wondered, do you suppose that would have applied to any land he'd chosen? I suspect so.)
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
How many people have a verifiable drop of Southern blood in their veins?

Of those, how many woulf leap at the chance to get out from under Washington's skyrocketing debt and start afresh?

yes. mah kin from georgia owned a plantation.

and yes.

...but they aren't connected.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Basic info on the Senate bill

Now, many people (myself emphatically included) maintain that the War of Northern Aggression was an illegal overthrow of an established government...one with the power to collect tax revenue, to enact and enforce laws, to engage in commerce, to establish and support a military...every identifiable function of any other government. Should this legislation pass, and if my interpretation of it is correct I obviously hope and pray that it does, I forsee something that's 140 years overdue...the reinstatement of the Confederate States of America.

How many people have a verifiable drop of Southern blood in their veins? Of those, how many woulf leap at the chance to get out from under Washington's skyrocketing debt and start afresh?

Let's just start on this one minor point. Being Southern is not an ethnicity. You may live in the South and call yourself southern, but that is not an ethnicity. Being Hawaiian is. You can't just move here and call yourself Hawaiian. My people were here in my land from day one. There were no other people in our land before us. I don't believe you can say that about your neck of the woods.

Secondly, you say you had the power to collect tax revenue & engage in commerce. I'll admit that I don't know much about the South, but did you have your own currency to engage in such acts?
 
2minkey said:
so there was no stong-arming at all? hmmm...

The strong-arming came from individual businessmen in the islands, not from the American Government.

The president at the time (Cleveland) was against the overthrow. Unfortunately his term ended and the next president (McKinley) did not do anything to those individuals who overthrew the kingdom.

And so there we were, forced to live under a Provisional Government until America "saved" us and we became a territory and state.
 
Winky said:
If the Hawaiians what a fight I say give 'em one
we rolled over the Republican guard
I'm sure the Army of the Republic of Hawaii
could be defeated by a cub scout troop!

Give up the 50th state without a fight no way José'

Do you have anything intelligent to add to this conversation?
S.147/HR.309 does not authorize seccession from the US.
This bill is to provide parity in the federal policy for indiginous peoples, including American Indians and Alaskan Natives.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Aside from Winky's dubius response, the only question is this...If we give back Hawaii, shouldn't we give back everything else, too? It's not just the South I'm talking about...there are plenty of treaties with Native American's that have been broken, so what about them?

ugh. this is not about seccession. what this bill is asking for is to protect our rights as native hawaiians. currently, our native Hawaiian programs and services that we have in hawaii are being threatened by non-hawaiians who feel that they should have the same rights as we do.

an example of such a program is a certain PRIVATE school in hawaii, established by a hawaiian royal, that admits only hawaiian students. this is a PRIVATE school that accepts no federal funding, but non-Hawaiians are sueing, citing discrimination. it's a private school. they can admit whoever they want. that's like saying private schools are wrong and they should just admit everyone in the district like a public school.

its programs like this that the Akaka Bill is meant to protect.
 
*phew*

i know, i know. i just came back and i'm biting everyone in the ass.
i'm sorry ... i'm a little sensitive about Hawaiian issues.

if you were around during the jjr times, you understand ...
 
so the bill is akin to the rights that native americans have, sounds fair to me. And I still don't see what it has to do with the south, the USA was one country, and the south tried to seccede, and got the smack down.

The hawaiians were (are) a seperate distinct native society that was pushed aside because the US wanted more beach front property.
 
Back
Top