Hawaii—a U.S. territory since 1898—became the 50th state in August, 1959, following a referendum in Hawaii in which more than 93% of the voters approved the proposition that the territory should be admitted as a state.
There were many Hawaiian petitions for statehood during the first half of the 20th century.
The voters wished to participate directly in electing their own governor and to have a full voice in national debates and elections that affected their lives. The voters also felt that statehood was warranted because they had demonstrated their loyalty—no matter what their ethnic background—to the U.S. to the fullest extent during World War II.
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. The referendum asked voters to choose between accepting the Act and remaining a U.S. territory. The United Nations' Special Committee on Decolonization later removed Hawaiʻi from its list of non-self-governing territories.
I think it's more than a little dishonest to say that the native Hawaiians voted for this. At the time of this referendum, they composed about 15% of the population and their culture and identity had been suppressed for generations.
The US government even admitted in 1993 that the native people never agreed to this.
I think it’s more than a little dishonest to say that the native Hawaiians voted for this.
almost as dishonest as claiming is said something I didn’t and then moving the goalposts to win an argument…
At the time of this referendum, they composed about 15% of the population and their culture and identity had been suppressed for generations.
irrelevant. sad, but irrelevant. thy got to vote, just like anyone else, and, even by your numbers, 2/3 of THAT population voted for statehood.
The US government even admitted in 1993 that the native people never agreed to this.
that’s not what that says, but it’s nice to know how easy it is for you to lie to try to get ahead in an argument. “winning” online debates must be very important for you.
Swarming lands with your settlers and then claiming b-but they muh voted for it, is peak lib cracker imperialism. The french did the same in New Caledonia.
Swarming lands with your settlers and then claiming b-but they muh voted for it, is peak lib cracker imperialism. The french did the same in New Caledonia.
so, when you can’t argue with facts, you rest to redefining words, personal insults, and racist slurs.
I didn’t argue with you, I made clear statements about your nature and your character. Its up to you to change that and if you refuse, well thats just proves me right in the end.
The discussion is about US OCCUPYING Hawaii. Imagine thinking that a referendum of the occupiers on whether they want to keep occupying is a valid way to decide whether people who have bee OCCUPIED agree with the occupation. It's like if I moved into your house and put a gun to your head, and then ran a referendum to see if I should stay there.
The fact that you don't understand how idiotic your argument is shows what an utter imbecile you are.
WRONG. you changed the subject to a straw man argument when you couldn’t argue the facts in good faith. Right here:
Show
going by your comment history, logical fallacies are something you’re an expert at wielding and often get comments removed and your account banned for it (and or your habit of throwing insult-ridden tantrums when your bad-faith tactics fail)
Show
The fact that you don’t understand how idiotic your argument is shows what an utter imbecile you are.
oh, look, more childish name-calling because you can’t argue in good faith based on the facts, and I’m some idiot who will fall fr your little tricks.
WRONG. you changed the subject to a straw man argument when you couldn’t argue the facts in good faith. Right here:
I see you have reading comprehension problems, which I guess is no surprise given that you communicate almost exclusively in children's pictures. The quote you screenshotted very clearly talks about the native population of Hawaii. You know the people who live there, not the people who are occupying them. Imagine not being able to understand that.
going by your comment history, logical fallacies are something you’re an expert at wielding and often get comments removed and your account banned for it (and or your habit of throwing insult-ridden tantrums when your bad-faith tactics fail)
Sounds like you're talking about yourself there colonizer.
oh, look, more childish name-calling because you can’t argue in good faith based on the facts, and I’m some idiot who will fall fr your little tricks.
I'm just making a basic observation about your level of intelligence based on your comment history. You are objectively an imbecile. This isn't me trying to insult you, that's just a basic fact.
Perhaps it was you that didn't pay attention to the title in the first place? Perhaps it's you that is raising the goal post? Perhaps, now that two different people explained to you that "people who live there" clearly meant "natives" it's time to acknowledge your mistake? Perhaps now that you've been explained what "occupation" means it's time to stop pretending we're talking about something else entirely?
When did they vote to join? They fought pretty hard to keep their rightfully elected government.
in 1959, with a 93%+ majority:
(source)
(source)
I think it's more than a little dishonest to say that the native Hawaiians voted for this. At the time of this referendum, they composed about 15% of the population and their culture and identity had been suppressed for generations.
The US government even admitted in 1993 that the native people never agreed to this.
almost as dishonest as claiming is said something I didn’t and then moving the goalposts to win an argument…
irrelevant. sad, but irrelevant. thy got to vote, just like anyone else, and, even by your numbers, 2/3 of THAT population voted for statehood.
that’s not what that says, but it’s nice to know how easy it is for you to lie to try to get ahead in an argument. “winning” online debates must be very important for you.
Swarming lands with your settlers and then claiming b-but they muh voted for it, is peak lib cracker imperialism. The french did the same in New Caledonia.
Don't forget about saying the settlers have a legitimate say on what happens to Hawaii.
so, when you can’t argue with facts, you rest to redefining words, personal insults, and racist slurs.
classy
I didn’t argue with you, I made clear statements about your nature and your character. Its up to you to change that and if you refuse, well thats just proves me right in the end.
yeah, that’s why I said “when you can’t argue…”
you had a tantrum and hurtled racist slurs and insults
you’e right because you have racist tantrums and can’t make rational, fact-based arguments? interesting take...
93% of natives or all inhabitants?
as you can clearly see,
Not al residents are natives, right? So what % of natives voted in favor?
so, now you’re moving the goalposts because you didn’t like the answer...
The discussion is about US OCCUPYING Hawaii. Imagine thinking that a referendum of the occupiers on whether they want to keep occupying is a valid way to decide whether people who have bee OCCUPIED agree with the occupation. It's like if I moved into your house and put a gun to your head, and then ran a referendum to see if I should stay there.
The fact that you don't understand how idiotic your argument is shows what an utter imbecile you are.
WRONG. you changed the subject to a straw man argument when you couldn’t argue the facts in good faith. Right here:
going by your comment history, logical fallacies are something you’re an expert at wielding and often get comments removed and your account banned for it (and or your habit of throwing insult-ridden tantrums when your bad-faith tactics fail)
oh, look, more childish name-calling because you can’t argue in good faith based on the facts, and I’m some idiot who will fall fr your little tricks.
I see you have reading comprehension problems, which I guess is no surprise given that you communicate almost exclusively in children's pictures. The quote you screenshotted very clearly talks about the native population of Hawaii. You know the people who live there, not the people who are occupying them. Imagine not being able to understand that.
Sounds like you're talking about yourself there colonizer.
I'm just making a basic observation about your level of intelligence based on your comment history. You are objectively an imbecile. This isn't me trying to insult you, that's just a basic fact.
Check title of this post. Do you see the word "native" there? In the title of this post that we're commenting in? "Native"? You see it?
I see the comment I replied to, the context and words used, and how it was changed to suit an argument once the facts became inconvenient.
perhaps you should pay closer attention to the conversation before you jump in unprepared.
Perhaps it was you that didn't pay attention to the title in the first place? Perhaps it's you that is raising the goal post? Perhaps, now that two different people explained to you that "people who live there" clearly meant "natives" it's time to acknowledge your mistake? Perhaps now that you've been explained what "occupation" means it's time to stop pretending we're talking about something else entirely?