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.
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.
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.
🐷 💩 🥎
Lol your mind sure is something.
spoiler
What if 90% of Hawaiians had revolted (and lost) while 90%+ of the other 10% of Hawaiians voted in the referendum?
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?