Let's not talk about divisive issues. WebDip is a happy place !

Kum ba yah, my lord.
Kum ba yah.

Define sovereignty. Will the Jews ever have sovereignty over Isreal? Will teh Blackfoot ever have sovereignty? Will the Saxons ever regain sovereignty? Deal withthe here and now.

The interesting thing about states is that they continue to exist without statutes of limitations. The government of the United States is responsible for its sins throughout its existence, even if actual Americans alive today are not.

I have gradually been building in my feeling that the only moral course is to reach a democratic resolution to the occupation of native lands. "Honor Indian Treaties" is the bumper sticker version of this idea.

It is of course politically untenable and difficult to achieve, and the repercussions are vast, but still.

It is difficult to resolve via referendum, because of huge amounts of immigration and displacement. At the same time, the continued state of things is immoral. Some resolution must be reached, at least via reparations.

You cannot just conveniently say "deal with the here and now." Tell that to neonazis.

The Czech is right though - at least in terms of 'define sovereignty'.

What does sovereignty mean in this context? Total independence from the United States and the creation of a new Hawaiian nation state? Devolved powers over certain issues? Maximum devolution, including from the Federal courts/government policy?

Are any of these things being demanded by anything other than an extremely small proportion of Hawaiians?

If not, why do you want to play Devil's Advocate on this issue?
To raise and discuss legitimate questions regarding 'sovereignty', independence, systems of power?
Or just for attention?

As far as displacement, so only natives get to vote on the issue of sovereignty? Really?!

Sovereignty means restoration of an illegally deposed government - yes, it means self-determination.

"If not, why do you want to play Devil's Advocate on this issue?
To raise and discuss legitimate questions regarding 'sovereignty', independence, systems of power?"

Is this really necessary? I raise the issues I want to raise and say what I want to say, you don't get to question my motives.

I agree that it is unlikely that most native Hawaiians want independence. But I am more than sure that they would like some kind of formal recompense for the overthrow of their government.

Think of what Hawaii was in 1800. Then think of what it was on December 7, 1942. The idea that it became an American naval base leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Something should be done about that, that's all I'm saying, and I am more than sure most native Hawaiians would agree.

In a similar vein, Native Americans are still treated like trash in the continental U.S. and deserve more support and recognition from the government that conquered them.

It is moral common sense, I feel. I study politics and know that in the world of realpolitik, you're SOL usually, but moral common sense demands the contrary. Something should be done, no? The Apology Act signed by Clinton was nice, but didn't actually do anything.

"As far as displacement, so only natives get to vote on the issue of sovereignty? Really?!"

Isn't that only fair?

Imagine if I trucked in 10,000 Sri Lankans into your hometown, and then held a referendum on whether your town would secede and be annexed by Sri Lanka.

I think you see what I'm saying.

"I raise the issues I want to raise and say what I want to say, you don't get to question my motives."

I haven't wanted to restrain your freedom to raise issues or say what you want to say. Questioning your motives does not do that, Thucydides. I am as much within my rights to question your own questions and statements as you are to pose them. Questioning initial statements and the intentions of such is a normal part of topic discussion.

yes....we should disavow Hawaii...and with it, we can say for certain that Obama is not a US citizen and be rid of that fucking loser. lol

"Think of what Hawaii was in 1800. Then think of what it was on December 7, 1942. The idea that it became an American naval base leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Something should be done about that, that's all I'm saying, and I am more than sure most native Hawaiians would agree. [...] It is moral common sense, I feel. I study politics."

I do not see a 'moral common sense' in what you have said. I think I know what you want to say - but, forgive me, I don't think you have argued an effective case. Especially considering your declaration that you are a politics student - and that this must, therefore, give you some sort of particular insight.

Suggesting that there is a clear 'moral common sense' way to deal with events that happened centuries ago seems ambitious.

Living here, I think its more likely that it becomes part of Japan.

and by the way, I don't think even most native Hawaiians (we're talking about the racial group I presume) favor sovereignty. Military service and connection to American culture is high in Hawaii.

And just to go back to your question over whether my comment was necessary - yes, I absolutely stand by my opinion that it was. I wanted to know if you seriously wanted to be engaged on this issue or whether you were just trolling. It's hard to tell. I didn't want to waste my (and other's) time responding to a debate that ended up being another opportunity to sing kum ba yah. Much as I love that song.

And, indeed, Thucydides has gone offline.

@Thucydides N. Ireland has been trying to work that out for years. All those Britons being shipped over. I guess it's onl;y fair only the Irish Celts get to vote then.

It's very hard to distinguish between irish and british celts, but i'm guessing a more detailed genetic study could give a percentage difference and esimate the average deviation one person was so they would have a percentage of a vote depending on how well they do in the DNA test...

But i think you're wrong, we've agreed a peace settlement and sovereignty deal. Devolved government for Northern Ireland and peaceful political means to push any agenda which changes the current sovereignty.

@Thucy - please do not make cheating accusations on the forum.

Bob Genghiskan

Hahaha, +1

So have the Hawaiians.

No, Hawaii will never be sovereign unless the global power structure changes tremendously--and neither will the other states of the U.S. ever have the freedom that they thought they would have when the Declaration of Independence was signed. Even the Constitution mentions free states, meaning the idea still had some credence--but the U.S. Civil War, through force majeure, very definitely ended any hope of sovereignty for the individual states. "I'm not saying it's good; I'm not saying it's bad...."

It would make absolutely no sense for Hawaii to be indepedent. The only discussion here is fantacist; utopian; the absurd.

Giving Hawaii "sovereignty" or independence is ludicrous. Should Russia recreate the Khanate of Sibir? Should the United Kingdom release Mercia? And, most importantly, the population of Hawaii does not want to be independent. You've gotten quite silly lately Thucydides.

That's why I thought he might be trolling. (which I guess you were, Thucy, seeing as you just abandoned this thread along with all the others)

If the reversal of conquest, be it military conquest or conquest through the migration, is to be a guiding principle, one always runs into the problem of "How far do we go back?" If it's good and proper to go back 50, 100, 200 years, then why not go back further? A date on which military and political borders were "perfect" or "ideal" will never be found.

Depending on the date chosen, the governments of the entire North and South American continents would have to change. Going back further would alter European borders radically, and Africa's borders have never represented self-determination of people grouped by language and/or culture.

So what's the point in trying to put a "moral" slant to the reversal of history? Are these attempts, worldwide, not simply the latest salvos in the new battles for conquest?

Sorry, that should read, "If the reversal of conquest, be it military conquest or conquest through migration, is to be a guiding principle ..."

We could always nuke the world and restart. Doesn't seem like a realistic solution either.

"Imagine if I trucked in 10,000 Sri Lankans into your hometown, and then held a referendum on whether your town would secede and be annexed by Sri Lanka.

I think you see what I'm saying."

Yes, because the new truckloads, being new truckloads, would not have had time to build their own lives in the territory in question.

That's not a parallel situation, though. The truckloads are dead; you're referring now to three, four, five generations, is it, of their descendants. People who in their own right have done nothing wrong by their very existence; people who have as much stake now in the sovereignty of Hawaii as the descendants of the original inhabitants. Now, that's not to say nothing can or should be done to advance whatever cause those original inhabitants' descendants have - but no, it's far from fair to hold such a vote as you've cast it.

Food for thought: over 90% of Hawaiian voters approved becoming a state. Texas, Vermont and California were also independent prior to becoming states. Also, hha v midkiff is an interesting case about reallocating land from a few to the many in Hawaii.

"Think of what Hawaii was in 1800. Then think of what it was on December 7, 1942. The idea that it became an American naval base leaves a bad taste in the mouth."

I'm surprised nobody pointed out that Pearl Harbor was in 1941...

I don't like it when people are apologetic about past history. You can deplore what happened, honor those who suffered, and try to prevent such things from happening in the future, but trying to say that we're illegally occupying Hawaii is nuts. This is a troll thread (and I realize I'm feeding the troll). Hawaii is not illegally occupied. They don't have the option of gaining sovereignty. End of matter.

When do the descendants of Boudicca get back possession of England?

So let's go back innumerable years, to somewhere likely in sub-Saharan Africa, to the "Eve" mother. We get that postage stamp, all of us, and nature gets the rest. As states do, we pick the dates and maps that best support our claims. Ever hear of the Spratley Islands? Have you ever actually heard what historical document China holds as the underpinning of its claims to that region of water?

glad to see that Thucy just got Bob Genghiskhaned. Stupid thread from someone who likes to go around calling threads stupid.

@GF - Only cause I've been offline all night. Thucy studies politics and doesn't even know the correct year that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor? Tsk, tsk, tsk.

I don't give a shit, this is how I feel.

Can you not understand that this is sincere and not trolling?

@Karatur - the document that China is using to underpin it's claims in the Sth China Sea, is called the 'Nine-Dash Line' so called because it was made on a map using.. nine dashes. It was a simplification of the more historical 'eleven-dash-line' which was drawn up in 1947 by the then-ruling Kuomintang government. The nine-dash-line was drawn up in 1953, when Beijing eliminated two of the dashes.

That is the historical document in a nutshell. Look it up.

Nah! Thucy is trolling. If he is sincere, then he needs to retake hgih school (nay junior high) world history.