Jim

Captain Picard,
Yes, I understand the Japanese bombed a US military base. I don't want to start World War II over this, but my point was the Japanese clearly had territorial ambitions in the Pacific. We know that because it happened. So to say Japan grabbing Hawaii is speculation doesn't hold water -- Japan grabbed whatever they could in the 1940's.

Karen

Jim we were talking about 1895. Pearl Harbor was a response to an oil embargo the US had in place without our presence the Hawaiians would not have lost 77 civilians on that day..and even if we were discussing 1941 when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor if you knew the attack they did not have the power for a sustained attack. The economy was suffering greatly and they were fighting on too many fronts. They were not able to maintain a hold on China and other spots it is hardly likely that they would have maintained a hold on Hawaii. IF AND ONLY IF THEY DID TRY TO DOMINATE HAWAII THAN THAT IS WHEN THE US COULD BE THE GOOD GUY AND ACT AS PEACE KEEPERS not invaders or conquerors that redistributed the wealth, land and political power Before this.

Jane

As recently as the 1800's Hawaii's islands were called the Sandwich Islands. Maui was spelled "Mowee" and Kauai "Kowee".
I own some antique maps with such designations on them.

Karen

Jane you understand that Hawaiians were not referring to this place as the sandwhich islands, yes?

It has always been called Hawaii (Haviee) or Hawiee, Kauai (Kawiee) still pronounced this way by people who live there. What we know on the mainland is a slang pronounciation we created.

leahj

The James Michner book "Hawaii" gives a wonderful overview. Thought the book is fiction, many of the events and characters are based on historical fact.

The beginning of the book, describing the creation of the islands thorugh the author's imaginationa and research is fantastic!

xxx

karen/pele/picardo (one & the same):

I agree absolutely with Helen's suggestion that Hawaii has benefited hugely from U.S. stewardship. If Hawaii was to suddenly become a monarchy right now their standard of living would plummet due to higher prices and lower government income.

In the 1880's landowners, such as Sanford Dole, may have encouraged U.S. intervention but the real issue was not the land. It was Pearl Harbor and it was a strategic issue for the U.S. No less important then than getting a handle on terrorists is for us today.

Roger

People are more than just economic animals, Helen and xxx. This is true despite the best efforts of economic determists and libertarian rationalists. For instance, Puerto Rico benefits from the USA's parental superivision yet all proud Puerto Rican patriots ought to be for independence. Same goes for the Quebec/Canada situation as well as Basques/Spain or Kurdistan/Turkey, Iran and Iraq. Culture should trump money if we are to remain human.

kama'aina

Being part of the U.S. helps more of our native Hawaiian culture to be preserved. Look at what has happened to other Pacific island cultures when they have had to make it on their own.

Pele

xxx,

You seem to think the criteria for taking over Hawaii was that they would "benefit" from being affiliated with the US.

Much of the world thinks that is how this country operates. That it is ok to usurp native culture and customs because the US determine that they will be better off with the US determining what is good for them.

You could use that logic to invade almost any country. Did it ever occur to you , that native Hawaiians wanted to keep their language, and culture?

As I type this I realize that Helen and xxx may be Mormons that believe converting people to their ways. It's scary.

xxxxxxx

xxx that is not true I always understood the troops that walked into Honolulu 1895 to be a hired military by American businessman. The presidency at the time thought it was very unlawful but turned away and did nothing to stop what was going on. You know it is not patriotic to be stupid it's just stupid.

Again Hawaii is a different economy there were far more people running plantations and turning a profit to compare it with other less developed pacific island economies. Perhaps the plantations owners and Hawiians could have continued a business relationship. I don't think there needed to be a complete military coup. And the redistribution of wealth and political power that took place DESERVES OUR APOLOGY.

BTW The goal of the sovereignty movement (strongest faction) is not to take back all land right now they are looking for seeded land that were promised to the Hawaiians years ago so that Hawaiians can live in their homeland. They want to do this by getting "indiginous peoples status", Eskimos have this along with some Indian Groups. The US is stingy about who it gives this status to because they know many are owed it and they still don't want to give back land. So they don't offer it regularaly and not even small groups are compensated. It should be appauling to you that more Hawaiians live in California than Hawaii. That mainland Americans and Japanese can buy up land over Native Hawaiians that desend from 1000 years of ancestry in Hawaii.


XXX and Helen what is just appauling about your comments is that you completely side step American accountabilty. I guess this is what makes Americans appear obnoxious and arrogant. This is why you see people in the street dancing in the street at our distruction.

Jane

Karen, I believe these were Captain Cook's names based on a combination of perceptions of language of the natives and his own ideas.

Pele

Send all of the Haole's baack to United Statess and Japaneses back to Japan. Hawaii iz for Hawaiians.

Pele

The native Hawaiians will get screwed.

For example, our history of taking care of the Indians is deplorable.

We have failed to live up to agreements and squandered oil and mineral rights due the Indians. Even US Judges have condemned the Bureau of Indian Affairs for its lack of financial controls.

Don Henley

If you call someplace Paradise, kiss it goodbye.

Rusty

Huh? This is a stupid debate. There are no true native Hawaiians left, even in Hawaii or California. There are people with Hawaiian ancestry, but all of those people also have some European ancestry. Many also have Asian ancestry and all are Americans. Pele sounds like a golddigger.

lisa

Note to Captain Picard about timelines.
Pearl Harbor bombing December 7, 1941
Hawaii becomes a state on August 21, 1959.

You need to get your timelines correct.

Just because a US military base was bombed, doesn't mean US soil was bombed.

xxxxx

Wrong Rusty there are 11,000 pure Hawaiians left in the islands more in California, Oregon, Washington and Alaska state. I think the total number is in the neighborhood of 40,000 worldwide. You can't even live on Niihau (sp) if you are not full blooded. The number is still so small compared to the 3-400,000. that lived pre Captain Cook days. But the fact that the number is small means that compensation would not be so difficult. AND IT IS NOT A DEBATE we are sharing knowledge here.

Pele

Rusty,

I beleive that most of the Hawaiians on Niihau are Native Hawaiians.

The reason that there aren't more on the other islands is because of the intervention of others...or haven't you read the whole thread?

robinsons

Pele, correct me if I'm wrong but don't the native Hawaiians on Ni'ihau have a really crappy living situation over there?

Captain Picard

Lisa, the islands of Hawaii because U.S. territory in 1900. Yes, it was U.S. soil that was attacked, not an independent Hawaii. Would you say that Washington D.C. is not part of U.S. soil? After all, it is not a state.