Slashdot Mirror

Now, similar outsiders come and request additional permission to do something similar - maybe not at all different from what has gone on for decades... you can tell them yes or no, what's your answer?

Oh - it is very much up to me. I can have an agreement with my heirs that as part of their inheritance, they aren't allowed to renew the lease. Keep the money in a trust fund that won't be distributed until the lease is permanently broken.

But you see, here's the point. As the lessor, that is my power. Ever wonder about exactly why There is all the kerfuffle? A simple "We will not renew the lease, good day sirs" is perfect, and perfectly acceptable. It would also be simple and final and ther ewould be no need for discussion. However, the real world doesn't always work like that. Perhaps the oppressed want to keep what they are getting from the present lease, and just want the bad Americans to go away.

Perhaps even, thi sis not a unoiversal sentiment among the oppressed who benefit form the lease. There may be inter-oppressed controversy. I suspect that not every one of the presumptive natives believes that their Gods are on the top of th mountain. Some might even be interested in Astronomy. There. Because something else is always something else, and basically, they don't want us there at all, do not want Hawaii to be a state. This lease thing is merely a vehicle for them to mess with us. For your reading enjoyment: http://nativevillage.org/Messa...

http://hawaii-nation.org/

http://www.hawaii-nation.org/s...

Here's the management plan. Reading through it, it's almost all about protecting th cultural aspects of Mauna Kea.

http://www.malamamaunakea.org/...

Getting any clearer idea? To me it's simple, because it would appear there is a marked sensitivity to what most scientists would consider the equivalent of burning bushes and golden calves and other middle easter biblical superstitions, yet observe them out of respect and tolerance. Some people just don't want us there at all, and don't want the US to have any psrt of what they consider theirs, and want to be a sovereign nation. But it would be naive to believe that is a universal sentiment. So should those who don't want us there at all have their way?

Now, similar outsiders come and request additional permission to do something similar - maybe not at all different from what has gone on for decades... you can tell them yes or no, what's your answer?

Oh - it is very much up to me. I can have an agreement with my heirs that as part of their inheritance, they aren't allowed to renew the lease. Keep the money in a trust fund that won't be distributed until the lease is permanently broken.

But you see, here's the point. As the lessor, that is my power. Ever wonder about exactly why There is all the kerfuffle? A simple "We will not renew the lease, good day sirs" is perfect, and perfectly acceptable. It would also be simple and final and ther ewould be no need for discussion. However, the real world doesn't always work like that. Perhaps the oppressed want to keep what they are getting from the present lease, and just want the bad Americans to go away.

Perhaps even, thi sis not a unoiversal sentiment among the oppressed who benefit form the lease. There may be inter-oppressed controversy. I suspect that not every one of the presumptive natives believes that their Gods are on the top of th mountain. Some might even be interested in Astronomy. There. Because something else is always something else, and basically, they don't want us there at all, do not want Hawaii to be a state. This lease thing is merely a vehicle for them to mess with us. For your reading enjoyment: http://nativevillage.org/Messa...

http://hawaii-nation.org/

http://www.hawaii-nation.org/s...

Here's the management plan. Reading through it, it's almost all about protecting th cultural aspects of Mauna Kea.

http://www.malamamaunakea.org/...

Getting any clearer idea? To me it's simple, because it would appear there is a marked sensitivity to what most scientists would consider the equivalent of burning bushes and golden calves and other middle easter biblical superstitions, yet observe them out of respect and tolerance. Some people just don't want us there at all, and don't want the US to have any psrt of what they consider theirs, and want to be a sovereign nation. But it would be naive to believe that is a universal sentiment. So should those who don't want us there at all have their way?

You may not be aware of it, but there is a strong secession movement in Hawaii. Check it out. It has had no real effect.

If you can come up with a better way to get a thousand people from point a to point b without vehicles, I'd love to hear it. And why can't we sing? Are you some kind of fascist?

Weapons are the tools of fear;
a decent man will avoid them
except in the direst necessity
and, if compelled, will use them
only with the utmost restraint.
Peace is his highest value.
If the peace has been shattered,
how can he be content?
His enemies are not demons,
but human beings like himself.
He doesn't wish them personal harm.
Nor does he rejoice in victory.
How could he rejoice in victory
and delight in the slaughter of men?

He enters a battle gravely,
with sorrow and with great compassion,
as if he were attending a funeral.

--Lao Tzu

It is fascists who sing joyful songs as they march off to war. If a free man of any decency must kill to defend his community - and this hasn't applied in the U.S. since the Battle of Baltimore in 1814[*] - he does so with a heavy heart.

([*]Hawaii was not part of the U.S. at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, and the islands are stolen property anyway. 9/11 was an act of mass murder, not a military attack by another nation that desires to invade or annex the U.S.)

You see, when you add the idea of fossil "Co2" emmisions to the mix, you have to consider the same for production on the clean energy devices and transportation.

Of course. Eventually, though, renewable energy can be self-supporting. It's sort of like make a new operating system self-hosting; you need another system to start the development, until the infrastructure is build. We'll need to keep using fossil energy to build the infrastructure for renewables. As the sticker cost of fossil energy increases towards its true cost, that has to get factored into decisions made in building the renewable energy infrastructure.

I read once the only way ethanol production is profitable is because it uses fossil fuels for energy in the production cycles that increase the already small gain in energy seen from using it.

Ethanol from corn is a completely stupid idea, having more to do with profits for agribusiness than sustainable energy. Sensible biofuels use waste biomass, or easy-care weed crops. Even so, even though it is just about a worse-case example of biofules, corn ethanol still produces more energy than is put it.

We do not go to war over oil. Never have.

Har de har har. Nations go to war over natural resources all the time. Ideology and religion are used to whip up the masses, but the base cause is much more often about land or stuff that can extracted from it.

The U.S. is not an exception. We stuck our nose into Vietnam to keep tungsten and tin coming and fought with Japan over who would get to colonize the Pacific in WWII (how do you think we ended up with a naval base in Pearl Harbor, sugar?).

Our foreign policy interest in the Middle East is to keep the oil flowing to us and away from our rivals. It's not to promote democracy - we knocked over a democratic government in Iran to install a friendly Shah, stayed buddies with the Saudis, even supported Saddam Hussein for years. This foreign policy has tremendous costs, including wars and other military spending, foreign aid, and intangibles such as looking like an ass to the rest of the world. If you paid for those at the pump and on your heating oil bill, the picture would look very different.

you regret to mention that it was agreed between representatives of Hawaii and President McKinley....Now, was the overthrow of the Monarchy(only a few years earlier) a violent taste of American expansionism. Maybe.

There's no "maybe" about it; the U.S. has even offered an official apology. The "representatives" you speak of were shills for American interests with no authority to speak for the people of Hawaii.

Now I don't know about, but in the midst of having entire villages wiped out by Japanese tests, I don't think any Chinese person in the entire country saw the occupation by Japan as a good thing.

And just where did I ever suggest that any of them did?

No, the attack was unprovoked. You seem to think embargoes to stop the extraordinarily violent expansion of a country allied with Hitler (who was seen as one of the greatest threats ever face with the outbreak of full conflict in Europe) is not allowed.

I didn't say that embargoes weren't allowed. But they were certainly provocative. If you have a hornet's nest outside your door, knocking it down with a stick might be justified and ethical and the right thing to do, but don't act surprised when they try to sting you.

The issue I have is with the popular myth that the noble and pure U.S. was quietly minding its own business when suddenly, out of nowhere, comes Pearl Harbor. But the fact is the U.S. had been meddling in the Pacific for decades (Perry's Black Ships, the Spanish-American War, the Phillipines, Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa), even if we had swung back to a somewhat more isolationist policy during the Depression. And the attack came after a run-up including not just embargos against Japan but covert financial and military support to Chinese forces fighting the Japanese invasion.

U.S. actions were provokative (that does not mean they were not justified, only that they were certain to provoke a response) and while Japan's desires were imperialistic, the U.S. had been evincing similar desires in the Pacific for a long time, though being somewhat less bloody about it.

It probably has something to do with the fact that I've spent most my adult life living in Japan working here and have always been interested in how cultures progress over time.

Where about? I'm coming to Osaka for the spring. Perhaps we can continue the debate over a biiru. (I know, it's a sizable country, but odds are good you're either around Tokyo or Kansai.)

Some of those places aren't that far away.

I"m not sure Hawaii should appear in this list, as it appears to not so much be a state, but an illegally annexed sovereign nation.

You can do a google for the details if you wish. But, basically the resident sugar barens/merchants wanted to be part of US, so they, with the help of a boatload of US marines, took control from the constitutional monarchy and declared themselves a provisional government. Two days later they set sail for the mainland, and twenty nine days after that, they were in Washington with a annexation treaty to become part of the US.

The then president Cleveland saw through the whole thing. His rather long speech on the issue to the Senate and the House of Representatives goes into all the gory details. He also dispatched a fellow for further investigation who travelled back to the islands for a follow up report. the issue. The next president in office was unfortunately not so honourable and promptly approved the whole dirty deal.

In 1959 there was an official US apology for the whole mess and held a vote was held to officiate everything. However, independence was not offered as an option (only remaining as a territory or becoming a state), and only those who had opted to become US citizens were allowed to vote (including all the US services men and their families currently residing on the islands). Not surprisingly, the vote from the occupied islands more then made up for the overwhelming NO from the mostly native islands.

Except for another public apology in 1993, which acknowledged vote of the indigenous people in the following excerpt:

Whereas, the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum;

I"m not sure Hawaii should appear in this list, as it appears to not so much be a state, but an illegally annexed sovereign nation.

You can do a google for the details if you wish. But, basically the resident sugar barens/merchants wanted to be part of US, so they, with the help of a boatload of US marines, took control from the constitutional monarchy and declared themselves a provisional government. Two days later they set sail for the mainland, and twenty nine days after that, they were in Washington with a annexation treaty to become part of the US.

The then president Cleveland saw through the whole thing. His rather long speech on the issue to the Senate and the House of Representatives goes into all the gory details. He also dispatched a fellow for further investigation who travelled back to the islands for a follow up report. the issue. The next president in office was unfortunately not so honourable and promptly approved the whole dirty deal.

In 1959 there was an official US apology for the whole mess and held a vote was held to officiate everything. However, independence was not offered as an option (only remaining as a territory or becoming a state), and only those who had opted to become US citizens were allowed to vote (including all the US services men and their families currently residing on the islands). Not surprisingly, the vote from the occupied islands more then made up for the overwhelming NO from the mostly native islands.

Except for another public apology in 1993, which acknowledged vote of the indigenous people in the following excerpt:

Whereas, the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum;

I"m not sure Hawaii should appear in this list, as it appears to not so much be a state, but an illegally annexed sovereign nation.

You can do a google for the details if you wish. But, basically the resident sugar barens/merchants wanted to be part of US, so they, with the help of a boatload of US marines, took control from the constitutional monarchy and declared themselves a provisional government. Two days later they set sail for the mainland, and twenty nine days after that, they were in Washington with a annexation treaty to become part of the US.

The then president Cleveland saw through the whole thing. His rather long speech on the issue to the Senate and the House of Representatives goes into all the gory details. He also dispatched a fellow for further investigation who travelled back to the islands for a follow up report. the issue. The next president in office was unfortunately not so honourable and promptly approved the whole dirty deal.

In 1959 there was an official US apology for the whole mess and held a vote was held to officiate everything. However, independence was not offered as an option (only remaining as a territory or becoming a state), and only those who had opted to become US citizens were allowed to vote (including all the US services men and their families currently residing on the islands). Not surprisingly, the vote from the occupied islands more then made up for the overwhelming NO from the mostly native islands.

Except for another public apology in 1993, which acknowledged vote of the indigenous people in the following excerpt:

Whereas, the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum;

Hawai'ians were the first people there. There's no record of or any reason to believe that anyone else had ever set foot on those islands when they arrived.

And Hawai'i, while certainly not the only case, is one of the most clearly defined instances in history of a soverign nation being taken over in an imperial manner.

They're after their own government and territory.

Wouldn't it be rather fascinating to see what they did with their own country?

PS: I happen to think that self-determination (mutually consenting adults forming their own states with territorial claim via eminent domain-driven migration as practical mechanism) is the fundamental human right upon which all other human rights are founded and that territorial integrity and democracy are secondary considerations. Large cranial capacity shouldn't be a prerequisite for human rights. But it would be particularly rational for supporters of the principle of human rights to give priority to Hawaiian self-determination since they are particularly endangered by outbreeding and displacement and are obviously a unique ethny.

China, since a lot of our property was stolen from our Indians through treaty violations.

Strange, I would have thought the USA's controll of Hawaii would have been a closer analogy, forgive the sometimes heated points made but they do have a point Hawaii Nation

Re Pearl harbour: Hawaii did not become a state of the U.S. until 1959, and to this day there are arguments that this may have in fact been illegal.

In any case, U.S. entry into WW-II is not at issue here. For the sake of focus, we can limit ourselves to even just post-cold-war cases, doesn't change the argument at all.

- nic

So here are some more links to document the sordid history of the US abroad.

The Long and Hidden History of the US in Somalia

Us Approves Invasion of East Timor

A brief history of CIA involvement in the drug trade

The Philippine War and Anti-Imperialism

Hawaii's annexation a story of betrayal

Keep modding me down and I will keep posting new links. My karma is capped right now so we could be here all night. How is it flamebait to talk about human rights abuses in the US in a story about a software license that forbids such abuses?

43% of Canadians support Québec separating? It'll be a cold day in hell before support reaches that level. And within Québec, it's LESS THAN HALF, otherwise they would have separated by now, since it's still a democratic country. Sure, it was a small margin last referendum, but still a greater margin than some people take to win. Interestingly, in the same way that Al Gore lost the US presidency, the current Québec provincial government won the last election due to the electoral system, even though they did not receive the most votes.

I imagine if you're all for Québec's right to self-determination, you're also supportive of the separation of the Second Republic of Texas, of Alaskan Nationhood, the restoration of the Sovereign Kingdom of Hawaii, the California Republic, Puerto Rican independence, and the formation of Cascadia from what's left of the United States of America.

49. Hawai'i was never legally a united state of America.