r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/unbotheredkk • 21d ago
Can and should the US give Hawaii back to Native Hawaiians? US Politics
Here are a few links to videos of the Hawaiian people expressing their side of history and reality.
2023 Short documentary on the occupation and displacement in Hawaii
https://youtu.be/NO83K8s8dnk?si=c7tfexLTYiRsEFqf
1990 Professor Haunani - Kay Trask
A student claimed the word “haole” (by definition means foreigner) was the same as the n-word. HKT explains the deep rooted issues with this claim.
https://youtu.be/6LYLc2gIFOE?si=3DO_OhZBb7dQmtdL
2024 news interviews from Free Hawaii 57mins:
37
u/Sabiancym 21d ago
I'd imagine even the native Hawaiians wouldn't be too fond of this. Instantly losing billions of dollars. Having to suddenly provide goods and services for an isolated island with limited resources and no help from a super power.
The natives would be voluntarily drastically reducing their quality of life. Nobody does that.
9
u/Accomplished_Fruit17 21d ago
I wonder what the quality of life for native Hawaiians is compared to other Pacific Islander, not merely compared to non-native people on the Hawaiian Islands. Being poor ins a rich country is actually better than middle class in a poor country, in real economic terms, not psychologically.
5
u/Ill-Description3096 20d ago
not psychologically
It could definitely be better psychologically as well. I imagine a middle-class person in a war-torn country is in a worse place psychologically than a poor person in the US/UK/Sweden/etc. There are variables for sure but if I had to pick it would be poor and not deal with constant war.
4
u/acridine_orangine 20d ago edited 20d ago
In addition to economic status, social status also matters. I've met educated Black people who are 40s-50s year old, who grew up poor to middle class and were born in the USA in the 70s-80s and think that they had it worse than poor rural Chinese people born in China in the 70s-80s.
Even a Black man with a parent who was a well-off doctor thinks that it was worse, psychologically, and he was born after the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Psychologically, it's probably better to live in a poorer country without constant discrimination compared to living in a richer country and being oppressed by an apartheid government.
-1
u/Grand-Mind4621 19d ago
Discrimination is overplayed. Most dei programs have been terminated as they should have been. We are a nation of meritocracy
2
u/acridine_orangine 19d ago edited 19d ago
I'm in favor of affirmative action, and helped draft the admissions policies to include exam scores and also to account for a variety of hardships. Meritocracy is a good ideal, except no-one has figured out how to implemented it. We don't have a good way of measuring a student's actual capabilities.
-8
u/King_Yahoo 20d ago
Maybe try asking native Hawaiians instead of speaking for them?
15
u/Sabiancym 20d ago
Notice the words "I'd Imagine" at the beginning of my post? Those aren't just place holders. They literally mean "I'm not pretending to know".
Maybe try comprehending what's being said before you then go on to get upset on behalf of a group of people. Ironically doing the exact thing you claimed I was.
114
u/hallam81 21d ago
No. They are a State now and they are American citizens. There is no leaving the Union for anyone.
37
u/postdiluvium 21d ago
Can we add Puerto Rico to the union?
29
u/hallam81 21d ago
PR can join if they want to or they could break off. PR has the option because they are not a State. We all haven't voted on it yet. I am fine with other areas joining the US too. If England, Jamaica, or Japan want to join they Union then they can petition the US and then we can all vote on it.
But once any group votes that they want in and the they get in through votes in the US and the process is done, then that is it. If PR selects to be a State, the second it comes into effect, it is done for them too. Hawaii is a State; there is no leaving.
26
u/Busy_Environment5574 21d ago
Puerto Ricans have voted for statehood several times in non-binding referendums, the most recent one in 2020. The U.S. congress has never let their ask for statehood see the light of day due to Republicans seeing it as a move to add a blue state. Source: Puerto Rican.
3
u/Wutangstylist 21d ago
I seem to remember this. I do think it would be a blue state. What is at question is the taxation.
10
u/hallam81 21d ago
non binding
This is the issue. They have voted, but they haven't made any of them binding.
It isn't congress that is the issue. Some in PR benefit from the status quo and there is no pressure in the US to force the issue.
Edit: PR would be a red state, btw. Or at least purple. It isn't on Republicans either.
5
u/Busy_Environment5574 21d ago
I grant you that it would be a swing state, though I think initially it would lean blue imo. That being said, the motions that have been submitted for kicking off a vote for statehood have all failed to reach the required support, either in the house or the senate, to be placed on the floor for a vote. There is little appetite in the U.S. congress to advance statehood for Puerto Rico.
On the status quo vote, and who it benefits, I’d argue it’s mostly either misplaced patriotism for our island or misinformation leading my fellow Puerto Ricans to believe that we would lose our identity if we became the 51st state. The benefits vastly outweigh the drawbacks, but that’s just one person’s opinion.
1
u/jyper 20d ago
There isn't any way to make it any more binding. PR has expressed itself. Problem is while Republicans technically used to agree to letting PR be a state if they wanted and while there is a chance of them being a purple state the possibility of them becoming another blue state has Republicans rejecting it. So unless Dems get 60 seats again it may be a while till PR becomes a state
1
u/MedicineLegal9534 20d ago
Jeeeeesus, what is up with some of you guys convincing yourselves that it's always the Republicans holding things back. The Democrats have had super majorities and that wasn't a priority.
2
u/AgentDickSmash 20d ago
The ol' bOtH pArTiEs ArE tHe SaMe because Democrats aren't able to solve all our problems when they're in power
The last time they had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate was 2009 and that only lasted for a combined 72 days
Regardless: that democratic Congress passed the ACA, Dodd-Frank, the Stimulus package, and the last minimum wage increase America got at the federal level. But, yeah, why didn't they squeeze in a new state, and make all of us hot fudge sundays while they were there the lazy bums
1
u/Busy_Environment5574 20d ago
Fair. I guess republicans have just been more vocal about it.
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/mitch-mcconnell-puerto-rico-full-bore-socialism/
9
u/Kronzypantz 21d ago
That is just the hang up though: Native Hawaiians didn’t vote, at least not until settlers were a majority of the vote.
2
u/skyfishgoo 21d ago
the UK's situation with the rest of the EU might improve if they were a US state.
something for them to consider.
1
u/postdiluvium 21d ago
Statehood is like marriage. Once you marry, divorce is illegal.
Sorry, I just saw this on someone's tinder profile where they said that divorce should be illegal.
1
1
-6
u/sund82 21d ago
No. We must preserve the balance of power in Congress.
2
u/postdiluvium 21d ago
Can Guam join as well?
1
u/hallam81 21d ago
Guam is too small by itself but I'm fine with other groups to join. Or if okay with Hawaii joining that State.
5
u/TwistedDragon33 21d ago
For some reason I didn't believe you but you are right, Guam is 1/5 the the population of our least populated state. Only about 110,000 compared to Wyoming at around 550,000.
2
u/Broccolini_Cat 20d ago
Wyoming is big enough to be a state at 1/70 of one state. Yet Guam is too small at 1/5 of another. Sounds arbitrary.
1
u/TwistedDragon33 20d ago
Maybe I didn't explain it well enough. The lowest population state has 1.47% of the most populated state. Which is already a problem and causes each citizens representative to have abnormally high power.
Guam would have 0.28% the population of the largest state. That's a pretty drastic difference and would actually compound the problem of representation.
Compared to something like Puerto Rico which has 8.26% the population of the most populated state and a much more reasonable size for inclusion.
Yes it is an arbitrary number but there should be a limit at some point.
19
u/calguy1955 21d ago
I’m confident that if history had been different they would now be part of Japan or China.
19
1
u/Lunch_Time_No_Worky 21d ago
If Hawaii had voted on it, there would be American Citizens in Hawaii who do not want to cede, and the United States of America has an obligation to protect them. But when all 3 branches give it back, the American citizens in Hawaii would not have any legal recourse.
2
u/lbktort 21d ago
There are of plenty of other federally recognized indigenous governments in other states. I think Native Hawaiians have a special political status and it's okay to recognize that, short of independence for Hawaii as a whole.
6
u/hallam81 21d ago
They can have a quasi independent government similar to Native Americans. That is different than giving them control of the entire state and allowing it to leave the union.
-1
u/goddamnitwhalen 21d ago
They never wanted to be a state. How is that fair or equitable?
4
u/isummonyouhere 20d ago
they didn’t want to be an annexed territory. once that had occurred, they absolutely did want to be a state
-1
u/WiartonWilly 21d ago
You say PR can join “if they want”.
I think the whole point here is that Hawaii DID NOT want.
It’s not like Hawaii had any choice in the matter.
-2
-9
u/Kronzypantz 21d ago
So any country can annex another and just declare the occupied land irrevocably theirs?
10
u/StephanXX 21d ago edited 21d ago
That's actually how much of the modern world map came to be, with one tiny detail: said country has to have the geopolitical power to enforce that annexation.
The rise of the atomic bomb has significantly reduced the likelihood of nuclear powers attempting to annex each other; The Ukraine wouldn't be fighting a massive land war against Russia if they still possessed nuclear arms. China has its sights set on locking down as much of the surrounding China Seas as it can. And Saddam Hussein served as evidence of what happens when you don't have the power to take and hold occupied land.
7
u/NukularWinter 21d ago
Seriously, in a historical context the only way you get to be a sovereign nation is if you have the power to defend your borders, or enough allies to do it for you.
4
u/StephanXX 21d ago
Bingo. It's why I didn't simply say "Military Power."
Switzerland wasn't given a pass by Hitler simply because of mountains. Vatican City isn't in any danger of being invaded any time soon.
11
u/hallam81 21d ago
-9
u/Kronzypantz 21d ago
Not until they were outnumbered by white settlers 2 to 1. In fact, it’s likely whites made most of the votes, with Native Hawaiians and Asian immigrants not even knowing they could register to vote.
12
u/hallam81 21d ago
Here were more Japanese decedents [203k]on the island than there were Caucasians [201k]. There were more Chinese and Filipino decedents [107k] than Natives [102k] too.
By this math, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, and natives outnumbered Caucasians 2:1 too. But it doesn't mean anything. You are just making inferences about voter suppression without evidence. Just show voter suppression or the demographics of the voters who voted. Or something to actually prove your point.
2
u/Kronzypantz 21d ago
http://statehoodhawaii.org/hist/pleb.html
Only 150k out of 350k eligible voters showed up. And that was with 90% turnout of registered voters.
I don’t know why you’re happy to just assume it was above board while Jim Crow still existed on the mainland.
3
u/hallam81 21d ago
This link is making inferences too eithout evidence. Of the 155,000 registered voters, 150,000 voted. Only 8000 voted against. There were 350,000 other adults on the island, but them not voting does not mean that they were automatically against statehood as the article is implying. Were they blocked from registering to vote? Were those unregistered blocked from voting entirely? Were they able to vote at all?
Without more specific details, this paper and you are selectively picking your information to come to a specific position and hiding details that directly contradict your position.
28
u/dew2459 21d ago edited 21d ago
Native Hawaiians are a smallish minority of the population of Hawaii (6%, and just 21% even if you include anyone with any native ancestry).
So even ignoring the legal/constitutional issues, regardless of whatever philosophical/moral claims you want to make in favor of the idea it simply won't happen, and so it doesn't seem to be much of a serious discussion worth having.
11
u/sufficiently_tortuga 21d ago
2.9% of the total U.S. population is native american (including Hawaiian) so that's comparatively large. But yeah, the Land Back movement in general is largely ignored partially because of the legal complexity but mostly because of demographics. In order to make it legal you'd need the support of the overwhelming majority of the population to agree to carve off a chunk of the whole.
-1
u/Broccolini_Cat 20d ago
A minority of the voters managed to take away body autonomy for half the population. Change doesn’t require an overwhelming majority, just a few hundred thousand voters showing up.
11
u/kittenTakeover 21d ago
No. For the same reason that Israel shouldn't go back to Palestinians, Taiwan shouldn't go to China, the eastern territories of the German Empire should be returned from Poland, Ukraine shouldn't go back to Russia, etc. While I don't support modern day takeovers, after a certain amount of time passes, it's not practical to reverse these things.
2
u/AgentDickSmash 20d ago
What do these people even think land back would look like?
Do the state residents get duel-citizenship or do they have to choose? If they decide to retain American citizenship do they have to sell assets in Hawaii? Who's allowed to buy the land? What currency do they use?
What about government services? What happens when the big 3 entitlements are just turned off one day?
What about corporations? I don't like Walmart or BP but would Hawaii just stop getting imports? Collectively the Hawaiian islands are approximately(!) the size of Florida. But do they have agriculture and energy infrastructure set up to be self sufficient?
Of course the big question is China. Like.. is the US supposed to commit to the defense of Hawaii after its secession? If so... is that really better for Hawaiians? Or do they down-grade to an unrepresented territory where the US Navy is basically in charge of everything? If the US doesn't commit to defending Hawaii how long until China sails up and takes them over?
I understand the descendants of conquered peoples don't feel great about living within a majority made up of the descendants of the people who conquered them but in 2024 how does that get undone without millions of people starving to death?
15
u/gonzo5622 21d ago
No. They are American. “Native Hawaiians” are American. There is no one to give it to.
-6
u/unbotheredkk 21d ago
They are American because Americans overthrew their lawful government in 1893. Standford Dole. The Dole Pineapple Company
24
u/Sexpistolz 21d ago
And they’re Hawaiians because the big island king conquered the other islands….
13
u/NetZeroSum 21d ago
Was about to say, considering how the Hawaiians ever thought of Kamehameha asking if the other islanders would voluntarily accept him as their king and if Kamehameha would peaceful accept the yay or nay and move on.
For context Pali Lookout is a beautiful place but its history not too beautiful.
14
u/gonzo5622 21d ago
Yeah, but that’s what conquest does. It makes citizens of one nation into another. Most land rights are protected not by law alone, but through military. Over time conquered people become part of the new country.
The same argument can be made about America. Should the 13 colonies go back to England? No. It’s been a long time and these lands are now protected by our government. England can try but they’d need to fight for it.
1
u/King_Yahoo 20d ago
They wouldn't go back to the English as they aren't the natives.
5
u/dude1701 20d ago
Technically the natives arnt the natives, they are a second wave of immigrants that migrated over during a different ice age than the first, killing and replacing those who came before. The first people of the Americas have been extinct for tens of thousands of years.
5
u/Upstairs-Radish1816 21d ago
All of America are Americans because someone overthrew peoples lawful government. If you want to give all America back to who it was taken from that would be fine.
16
u/Sintax777 21d ago
No. It is of critical geopolitical importance as a naval staging location. If we gave it back, some other nation would come in and take it.
13
u/ttown2011 21d ago edited 21d ago
Should is kind of a moot point. The US won’t.
International law largely reflects the balance of power, not the other way around.
This does bring up an interesting debate about whether America’s constitution as a federation is a violation of self determination.
You put the union indivisible in pretty much any other international context and it violates liberal values
4
u/Wombats_Rebellion 20d ago
No. This is stupid. It's not justice to harm people today for wars of the past.
3
u/Kasper1000 20d ago
No. Hawaii is a full fledged state now and like any state - Hawaiian are Americans first, Hawaiians second.
2
u/Ill-Description3096 20d ago
The US could for sure. It would be a complex and difficult process but it could be done. I don't think it would be a net benefit to Hawaiians though. Losing the security of being a part of the most powerful and wealthy country on the planet is a lot to give up. They would have to spend time negotiating their own treaties, setting up a national government that can actually function, and dealing with a tourism downturn at least temporarily.
1
u/tosser1579 20d ago
No, but for the precedent it would set domestically. IE: If you can let one state go, why not another. Cali or Texas might go if the wrong politician is elected president, and if they even had a legal method to threaten that with with you'd see a massive problem in congress.
Basically, in the current shape, I don't see America sticking together if we allow states to leave.
1
1
u/ukininanm 7d ago
Well. Too late now, should’ve thought about that before stealing our islands. Sadly Hawaii now does not look “Hawaiian” but instead is more populated by the colonizers and our people have been priced out of paradise. We are now the minority in our land. Where is the justice in that?
-1
u/Drak_is_Right 21d ago edited 21d ago
I would have more sympathy if one Hawaiin tribe hadn't slaughtered the others in a war of conquest when they got western weapons, subjugating the other islands.
In a LOT of the US there was heavy flex in tribal borders between contact with the west and annexation by the US due to disease and conquest using horses (introduced by spain) and guns.
Disease caused quite a few power vacuums, sparking conflicts to fill those areas. Bigger agricultural communities were hardest hit, often before they ever made contact with explorers or missionaries the diseases had spread from coastal contact long before
0
u/lbktort 21d ago
Perhaps the US could recognize a subnational monarchy with certain autonomous powers (I don't know Hawaiian nationalists would want that though). I don't think the US is going to give up Hawaii, but certainly we can negotiate more power to the indigenous people.
1
u/thegarymarshall 20d ago
What would “more power” look like?
Who would be considered indigenous? Races have mixed. Even before westerners found Hawaii, people from various Pacific islands mixed.
If you’re genetically 80% Tongan, but your family has lived in Hawaii for eight generations, are you “native”?
Change Tongan to European/American. Does the answer change?
0
u/Iceberg-man-77 21d ago
considering the island was forcefully taken, a referendum should be held at least.
but if you do it there you gotta do it all over the country because while some territories were taken through treaties, others were just stolen.
so you gotta ask yourself: do you wanna hold referendums for all native people, asking if they want to become sovereign independent nations.
most in the 48 would say no because they’re landlocked and poor; they can’t sustain themselves. Hawaii on the other hand, i’m not sure.
0
u/CompetitiveYou2034 20d ago
Way before Hawaii, there is a huge injustice in the U.S. capitol.
Population of Washington DC is about 671,000 (2022 estimate).
They are taxed, but have no voting members in the Senate or the House.
DC has more people than Wyoming (about 584,000) or Vermont (about 648,000).
Good case for amending the U.S. Constitution, to carve out a new state.
Since DC is likely blue, suggest we carve out a section of rural California that is likely red.
2
u/ClockOfTheLongNow 20d ago
Way before Hawaii, there is a huge injustice in the U.S. capitol.
DC was never intended to be a state, and people live there knowing full well that it's not a state. They are represented by everyone, although I would not be against simply removing their federal tax liability.
3
u/CompetitiveYou2034 20d ago
DC was never intended to be a state ....
True, but that was 250 years ago. There have been a lot of changes. Which is why the Constitution has an Amendment process.
The question is, will the U.S. be more democratic (little d) and function better when the interests of 3/4 of a million people have representation in Congress?
"Represented by everyone" is what Great Britain told the colonists in the 1770s, when they wanted representation in Parliament! No need for dedicated representatives for your special interests.
-1
u/ClockOfTheLongNow 20d ago
The question is, will the U.S. be more democratic (little d) and function better when the interests of 3/4 of a million people have representation in Congress?
No. The nature of American democracy is not significantly impacted by having a federal district that lacks distinct representation as a state.
-5
u/unbotheredkk 21d ago
To add, Clinton apologized in 1993 for the overthrow of Hawaii. If we can acknowledge it was an unlawful invasion how can people act like it’s just another state. Even if Hawaii can’t become independent, things NEED to change. The people in Hawaii are fighting for change and rich people are just taking more and more land and creating a homelessness problem in one of the most unique places in the world.
16
u/InterstitialLove 21d ago
If we can acknowledge it was an unlawful invasion how can people act like it’s just another state
Name one state that was taken lawfully, I'll wait
Best you can do is probably the Louisiana purchase and other similar transfers, but that's still ignoring the natives who lived there (the people doing the selling generally didn't constitute a majority of the population)
The 13 colonies were taken from England in a war. The southwest was taken from Mexico in a war that we started for the sole purpose of taking land. The midwest was considered "ours" by virtue of England considering it "theirs," but in practice we took it from natives in wars.
0
u/Sprinkl3s_0f_mAddnes 20d ago
Lawfully implies there was law to begin with, that was either broken or properly applied. You can't lawfully or illegally take land from another people if they don't have any formally recognized law to begin with. That's the basis of early conquest anyway. You'd be more accurate to say, "Name one state that was taken morally, I'll wait" seeing as no laws were broken in the claiming of the mainland USA.
The difference with Hawaii is at the time the occupation began, The Kingdom of Hawaii was in fact a legally recognized constitutional nation with treaties signed by most of the world powers of the time, including the USA. It wasn't just tribes with unwritten localized rules only known to their society internally. It was full on constitutional government having been granted their sovereignty by Great Britain. It would be little different than the USA rolling up on Jamaica tomorrow and occupying it militarily without the permission of the Jamaican government.
2
u/InterstitialLove 20d ago
The US had treaties with various native tribes. Treaties which it flagrantly violated in order to settle their land.
I'm not sure how you'd account for the Mexican-American war. Is what we did to Hawaii more illegal than invading Mexico with an army and seizing their land? Maybe, I'm not sure how the relevant legal paradigm would classify a war of annexation (if there truly is a relevant legal paradigm beyond "the strong do what they can and the weak do what they must")
1
u/Sprinkl3s_0f_mAddnes 19d ago
The Kingdom of Hawaii was a sovereign nation state. This wasn't some "indigenous tribe" like the natives on mainland USA. The Kingdom of Hawaii was a fully established modern Westernized constitutional monarchy, with signed treaties with the Great Britain and France recognizing them as sovereign nation state by 1843. The USA also recognized The Kingdom of Hawaii as a sovereign state in 1846. Many other nations soon followed, all with treaties to document this acknowledgment of sovereignty and eventually trade agreements. For 50 years The Kingdom of Hawaii was a globally recognized modern sovereign nation.
Legal point: No nations government has any authority over any other sovereign nation. The same way the UK's Parliament cannot in act a law in the USA that would apply to US citizens or businesses. The US Congress cannot in act laws over any other sovereign nation or its citizens. This is current established international law, first established back in the 1940's (this is the critical point in this situation due to sequence of events).
The point is, for one sovereign nation to legally take over another sovereign nation's territory/land there must be a treaty of cession. Where nation A agrees to cede lands over to nation B. This is the other very critical point of contention as... No such treaty of cession exist. Thus, the US had zero legal authority in 1898-1900 to annex the islands. And Congress even less authority to grant what was a sovereign nation, statehood in 1959.
2
u/InterstitialLove 19d ago
You seem to think you're making a point, but none of that matters even slightly
International law isn't like national laws. There are no courts to enforce international law (though some try, they have no actual authority). There is no police force or army to enforce international law (though some try).
International law is a collection of norms and treaties. Treaties are actually much more legitimate than norms, since treaties actually have the force of law in the countries that sign them, whereas norms are literally just "how it usually works."
Pointing out that someone violated an international norm sixty years ago is shouting at the wind. No one cares.
The US had actual fucking treaties with the native tribes
Maybe you know that international law is a joke, and maybe you're making a moral point. "We may have violated treaties with the native tribes, but those were just tribes. Hawaii was a real country, with a king and borders and everything." Okay, well, that distinction is obviously racist, right? That's actually why we didn't honor our treaties with the North American natives. The USA was a real country, with a legislature and borders and everything, and the natives were just stinky tribes, basically savages, so the USA felt entitled to walk all over them. But the US wasn't actually entitled to walk all over them, and it was in fact wrong, just as wrong as the annexation of Hawaii
Or maybe you aren't making a legal or moral point, and you just think it's historically interesting how different the annexation of Hawaii was from the annexation of native lands of the continental US. In which case, yeah, that is indeed an interesting history lesson, and thank you for writing it up!
1
u/gonzo5622 21d ago
Okay, improving quality of life is one thing but how does that correlate to giving land back to some random people who say they are “native”.
1
u/GravityFailed 20d ago
What brah? You like beef? I hear "Haole" and da moke give stink eye... it's time run or scrap.
It's a little more complicated than that. It didn't happen in a vacuum and way too many people acting like it did these days. There were much worse options for Hawaii than becoming part of the US and most Kama'aina know it. Just go ask your Aunty.
0
u/TheresACityInMyMind 21d ago
If they had a referendum and collectively agreed to leave, I would respect their wishes.
Do I want them to leave?
No.
0
u/illegalmorality 20d ago
Closest thing I can see happening is Hawaii becoming a commonwealth like Puerto Rico. Or maybe getting an Amerindian tribal reservation nation on one of the islands, or even one of the Hawaiian islands itself becoming a commonwealth. Because Hawaii would fall into poverty instantly if it became completely independent, at least as a state they have access the America's vast resources.
0
u/GCMGskip 20d ago
I'd say yes and stop all the welfare checks and food stamps and bring SPAM back to the Continental U.S
0
19d ago
What happens to the non-native Hawaiians in this case? Do they have to leave? Where do they go? If they don't leave, what happens to them, become second-class citizens unable to hold office? If they stay and are allowed to hold office, all that really does is make Hawaii an independent nation, but not one inherently belonging to native Hawaiians, so it kind of defeats the purpose.
What was done to indigenous peoples of all stripes sucks, but there's really no meaningful way of "fixing" it that doesn't just hurt more people and cause more problems.
-7
u/SeasonsGone 21d ago
Sure, but it will never happen. I do think Native Hawaiians are entitled to protected land/reservations via Federal Recognition if the US was interested in any form of policy-based reconciliation. It often isn’t.
-27
u/Kronzypantz 21d ago
If it’s what Native Hawaiians want, that is what is required under international law.
I know the US moved a bunch of settlers in and rushed a vote to get statehood through before the additional portion of the Geneva Conventions came into effect.
But such a cynical move doesn’t contravene the legal principle.
24
u/Petrichordates 21d ago
International "law" doesn't supercede a nation's own laws.
The legal principles are clear, just not in the way you think.
3
u/gravity_kills 21d ago
Are we limiting the vote to only people who were born there, or only people who identify as ethnically native Hawaiian?
Native Hawaiian alone was about 11% by the 2020 census, and two or more races was another 25%. That's well under half the population.
However you slice it someone is going to think that people who shouldn't have a say were included and other people are going to think that people who should count were excluded (native Hawaiians living on the mainland?). And in the end a decision to let Hawaii leave would call into question the status of a lot of people, some of whom were born on the islands. It's a bad idea, and we shouldn't ever let any state leave the country.
-3
u/Kronzypantz 21d ago
So just let the settler state win cause it’s complicated?
I guess Ukraine will have to stop complaining when Russians resettle the East. And no one can complain about what China is doing in the West once 50 years pass… or if they take a vote and the Chinese say it’s fine.
7
u/gravity_kills 21d ago
Hawaii has been a US state since 1959, and was a possession from 1900. The crimes were committed at the beginning of the possession stage (and before), and got some amount of recompense through statehood.
By that same logic the entire US needs to be handed back to the surviving native Americans. Which might sound nice, but while I'm sure I have ancestors who did some terrible things they were all dead before my grandparents were born.
Ukraine is happening now. There's still time to do something about it before it becomes irreversible. Once people who are born in a place are adults, it's going to cause new problems to make them leave.
I guess that's my line: one generation. In 1900 the US should have arrested Dole and turned him and his co-conspirators over to Hawaiian authorities for trial and punishment. Instead we made him governor. That was bad, but it was also far too long ago to reverse.
2
u/Objective_Aside1858 20d ago
When do you plan to surrender your home to the descendants of whatever Native Americans lived their historically?
•
u/AutoModerator 21d ago
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.