how is it an “occupation” when Hawaiians themselves voted to become a state by a 94+% majority?
On June 27, 1959, a referendum asked residents of Hawaiʻi to vote on the statehood bill; 94.3% voted in favor of statehood and 5.7% opposed it.
(source)
lmao you illiterate jackass. a sham vote to join a nation that overthrew your actual government by a bunch of people who moved there specifically to move the needle on that exact vote means nothing. christ, you liberals really love white nationalism as much as the flag fuckers do
Hi guys I’m sorry but this is one of my alts along with @OkToBeTakei@lemm.ee @whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml and @bauhaus@lemmy.ml. They’re misbehaving and acting like a
your lack of ability to imagine another option (such as revolt, etc.) does not mean you “win” the argument. it just means you lose because you lack imagination.
YOUR ARGUMENT is that the result of this referendum matters. It doesn’t because, as you’ve identified, both options are the same. As for Hawaiian resistance, they’ve been fighting continuously for a hundred years and, like every other liberation movement against the USA, have been ruthlessly suppressed by the fascist police and petty-bourgeoise militia of the “middle class”. And, like every other liberation struggle, victory is inevitable as the empire continues to crumble beneath the weight of its sins.
Also, neat how you’ve got five devoted followers upvoting you within two minutes on every one of your shitty empire-shilling posts for the last several hours
Yeah I’ve seen at least two of this dork’s alts posting the same dumb infographics of logical fallacies that they themselves are committing without a hint of irony.
YOUR ARGUMENT is that the result of this referendum matters
The FACTS bear that out. you’re attacking me because I pointed that out.
It doesn’t because, as you’ve identified, both options are the same
I didn’t say that, you did. keep your words out of my mouth.
As for Hawaiian resistance, they’ve been fighting continuously for a hundred years and, like every other liberation movement against the USA, have been ruthlessly suppressed by the fascist police and petty-bourgeoise militia of the “middle class”.
relevant to the argument, and a
you guys are addicted to logical fallacies
And, like every other liberation struggle, victory is inevitable as the empire continues to crumble beneath the weight of its sins.
cute story. also irrelevant
Also, neat how you’ve got five devoted followers upvoting you within two minutes on every one of your shitty empire-shilling posts for the last several hours
If voting “yes” on a referendum to be annexed is an accurate way of knowing that the majority of the populace supports annexation, does the same logic apply to Crimea being annexed by Russia? If not, why not?
inventing some history again are you? because this never happened. if you have to stoop this low to try to “score points” how much lower will you stoop?
You said “[a yes vote on Russia annexing Crimea] never happened.”
YOU said that. keep your words out of my mouth.
I showed that it did.
you know everyone can see your comments and my comments, right? that is very much not what happened, as anyone with eyeballs can see. I’m sorry that you’re having trouble seeing reality. consult a physician.
You responded with “We’re taking about Hawaii here.”
because we are, despite your attempts to change the subject. are you lost again?
So you don’t have an argument and have to make shit up. Cool. Judging by your other responses in the thread, you’re a shill trying to astroturf support for the U.S., so Imma block you 💅
In 1897, over 21,000 Natives, representing the overwhelming majority of adult Hawaiians, signed anti-annexation petitions in one of the first examples of protest against the overthrow of Queen Liliʻuokalaniʻs government.[143] Nearly 100 years later, in 1993, 17,000 Hawaiians marched to demand access and control over Hawaiian trust lands and as part of the modern Hawaiian sovereignty movement.[144] Hawaiian trust land ownership and use is still widely contested as a consequence of annexation. According to scholar Winona LaDuke, as of 2015, 95% of Hawaiʻiʻs land was owned or controlled by just 82 landholders, including over 50% by federal and state governments, as well as the established sugar and pineapple companies.[144] The Thirty Meter Telescope is planned to be built on Hawaiian trust land, but has faced resistance as the project interferes with Kanaka indigeneity.[clarify][145]
If you think a referendum from 1959 fairly represents the interests of the native population then what else is there to say.
If you think a referendum from 1959 fairly represents the interests of the native population then what else is there to say.
that it does, and you have failed to prove otherwise despite quoting a block f text you clearly don’t understand— OR are intentionally misrepresenting, hoping everyone else here is too stupid to realize you’re trying to pull a fast one on them.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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:
Like the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement which began actively protesting and gained support in the 1960s, pretty soon after the referendum?
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.
how is it an “occupation” when Hawaiians themselves voted to become a state by a 94+% majority?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_the_Hawaiian_Kingdom
note the dates. it was forcibly annexed by a coup government. the later vote to join as a state took place well afterwards
the facts don’t support your assertions. even if they did, it’s irrelevant because….
just as I said and the facts I gave support. since 94% of people voted to become a state, no rational person would call it an “occupation”.
lmao you illiterate jackass. a sham vote to join a nation that overthrew your actual government by a bunch of people who moved there specifically to move the needle on that exact vote means nothing. christ, you liberals really love white nationalism as much as the flag fuckers do
says the troll
trolling is when you know more about history than your average liberal white supremacist
says the troll
Hi guys I’m sorry but this is one of my alts along with @OkToBeTakei@lemm.ee @whiskeypickle@lemmy.ml @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml and @bauhaus@lemmy.ml. They’re misbehaving and acting like a
look how hard you’re working
what? didn’t you just comment on the Star Trek sub? what is this?
are you serious? lol
Should I kill you with my sword or with my gun?
Sorry, “I want to live” was not an option on the ballot
sigh…
Referendum is literally: “Would you like to be a state or a territory? Independence is not an option.”
Sigh…
False dichotomy is when you point out that people might want something other than two shit binary choices.
your lack of ability to imagine another option (such as revolt, etc.) does not mean you “win” the argument. it just means you lose because you lack imagination.
YOUR ARGUMENT is that the result of this referendum matters. It doesn’t because, as you’ve identified, both options are the same. As for Hawaiian resistance, they’ve been fighting continuously for a hundred years and, like every other liberation movement against the USA, have been ruthlessly suppressed by the fascist police and petty-bourgeoise militia of the “middle class”. And, like every other liberation struggle, victory is inevitable as the empire continues to crumble beneath the weight of its sins.
Also, neat how you’ve got five devoted followers upvoting you within two minutes on every one of your shitty empire-shilling posts for the last several hours
But no down votes!
Yeah I’ve seen at least two of this dork’s alts posting the same dumb infographics of logical fallacies that they themselves are committing without a hint of irony.
The FACTS bear that out. you’re attacking me because I pointed that out.
I didn’t say that, you did. keep your words out of my mouth.
relevant to the argument, and a
you guys are addicted to logical fallacies
cute story. also irrelevant
jealousy is an ugly look
If voting “yes” on a referendum to be annexed is an accurate way of knowing that the majority of the populace supports annexation, does the same logic apply to Crimea being annexed by Russia? If not, why not?
inventing some history again are you? because this never happened. if you have to stoop this low to try to “score points” how much lower will you stoop?
Uhhh https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/03/16/290525623/crimeans-vote-on-splitting-from-ukraine-to-join-russia
there’s moving the goalposts, then there’s moving them 55 years into the future and to the other side of the planet.
We’re taking about Hawaii here. you’re so lost and hate the US and “The West™®©” so much that you think this is one of your Ukaine/Russia arguments. WOW….
Get the fuck out of here
YOU said that. keep your words out of my mouth.
you know everyone can see your comments and my comments, right? that is very much not what happened, as anyone with eyeballs can see. I’m sorry that you’re having trouble seeing reality. consult a physician.
because we are, despite your attempts to change the subject. are you lost again?
So you don’t have an argument and have to make shit up. Cool. Judging by your other responses in the thread, you’re a shill trying to astroturf support for the U.S., so Imma block you 💅
“I know you are but what am I?” is not a convincing argument. most people learn this when they’re 5.
nah, just argue the facts, which I provide. you don’t like it and hurl childish insults in response. blocking me is doing ME a favor. bye!
from your own link
If you think a referendum from 1959 fairly represents the interests of the native population then what else is there to say.
Person is in bad faith and worse, smug. Hhit em with a PPB.
that it does, and you have failed to prove otherwise despite quoting a block f text you clearly don’t understand— OR are intentionally misrepresenting, hoping everyone else here is too stupid to realize you’re trying to pull a fast one on them.
Fortunately, I’m not the idiot you think I am.
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.
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.
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.
🐷 💩 🥎
Lol your mind sure is something.
spoiler