You can't possibly stop crazy people from getting weapons - be it butter knives, glocks, or automobiles. What you can do is give innocent, law abiding civilians the opportunity to defend themselves in case of an emergency, while they wait for the swat team to arrive.
This kind of setup won't stop jihadis or the mentally ill from attacking in the first place, but it will limit the damage they can do. Normal criminals, on the other hand, will likely adjust their behavior to non-confrontational types of property crime, than robberies, rapes, etc, as they adjust to the new risk/reward ratio.
Mexico, which has exactly one government owned gun store, where it is highly illegal to own all kinds of firearms, still sees massive amounts of violence because criminals don't follow gun laws. They bribe cops, pay off smugglers, or just wait for the US federal government to come on down and sell them "Fast and Furious"ly.
So, since mass shootings can't be avoided by any laws, the best thing you can really do is make sure that those willing to train and carry, have the opportunity to defend themselves and others.
Spot on. The left wing will be mollified because "look, the president made up new gun laws all by his widdle self!", and the right wing will be incensed because, "look, the president made up new gun laws all by his widdle self!".
Obviously, this guy is a uniter, not a divider:)/sarc
Anyone can have their own opinion - but the facts are clear.
The first major armed invasion of the original Marquesan colonists was from Tahiti. Continual warfare between ali'i was the rule of the day until Kamehameha the Great, with his multi-racial coalition, embracing western weaponry and tactics, unified the islands in 1810. The only other "invasion" was in 1843 when Paulet of the British Empire occupied Hawaii for five months, while a multi-racial coalition worked to restore the Kingdom (which was eventually successful).
The revolution of 1893 was an internal affair, driven by the monarchy's corruption. Both the provisional government and the republic of Hawaii were universally recognized by all nations that ever had diplomatic ties with the Kingdom.
The counter-revolution in 1895 was a failed attempt to restore the monarchy, and suppressing the counter-revolution was the independent Republic of Hawaii, with no help from other nations. The successful annexation in 1898 was fully recognized by all nations that ever had diplomatic ties to the Kingdom, and the Republic, and Statehood was fully recognized by all nations that ever had diplomatic ties to the Kingdom and the Republic in 1959.
The simple fact of the matter is that because of the wisdom of our kupuna, and the embrace of western values and technology early in the post-contact period, Hawaii is the only first world island nation in the pacific. If anything, Hawaiians have conquered the world, spreading their culture ("wiki"pedia, "akamai", being notable internet invasions of Hawaiian culture), and exercising enormous power within the greatest nation on earth. Heck, our own *president* was from Hawaii, and despite our small population, we get 1/50th representation in the Senate. Huge bonus, and one of the reasons Hawaii gets back so much federal $$.
The lying protesters and racial hucksters pandering to the poor and downtrodden in Hawaii, claiming that all of their problems are due to someone else, are pathetic.
You misunderstand the politics and demographics of the Hawaiian Kingdom - you had the 1%ers (royalty, businessmen), and the 99% (non-royalty, asian plantation workers). The internal revolution was a matter between 1%ers, and had little, if nothing, to do with the 99% (save the asians, who in 1887 were disenfranchised explicitly).
Furthermore, upon annexation to the United States, "natives" were on top for decades, thanks to the disenfranchised asians, and the american tradition of universal (mostly) suffrage. Prior to being a part of the US, there were all kinds of property qualifications on voting.
If you care to learn the story of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the Republic of Hawaii, and the Territory of Hawaii, and the State of Hawaii, you'll learn that it has no parallel to the Native American experience, despite the common word "native".
Yup, it's amazing what celestial navigation could do with stone age technology.
In fact, my family was part of the Hokule'a crew during the 1987 voyage.
That being said, one of the tragedies of the Tahitian invasion of Hawaii was their cessation of celestial navigation circa 1500AD (apparently due to some religious war between the homeland of Tahiti and the Hawaii colony). Thanks to Ben Finney (haole), and Mau Pialug (Micronesian), the art of celestial navigation was returned to Hawaiians in the 1970s.
So, once again, a multi-racial group managed to preserve a cultural treasure that had been lost by the violent Tahitian invaders...and we should all be grateful for that.
800AD - Marquesan Colony 1300AD - Tahitian Invasion 1810AD - Hawaiian Kingdom - sandalwood slavery 1848AD - Great mahele, inception of plantation economy - haoles and native hawaiians on top, asians on the bottom 1898AD - Annexation to america - economy begins to be driven by military and tourism, as well as agriculture
Frankly, the population of Hawaii, including those with pre-1778 ancestry, is *incredibly* strong because they didn't cling to identification as "native" - that whole bit, while encouraged by the race baiting Minister of Everything Walter Murray Gibson, really only resurged in the 1970s.
Development happened in the islands so rapidly *precisely* because of the foresighted nature of both the pre-1778 and post-1778 inhabitants. What has been "hard on the culture" is the victimhood industry interested in identity politics.
Oh absolutely - there's no doubt that victimhood propaganda and race huckstering over the past 40 years has created a massive political monster. OHA, in particular, has been an egregious race-based institution, which only recently was forced to open up its electoral process...to which they responded with an even more racist Na'i Aupuni.
Kalakaua was corrupted by Claus Spreckels (aka King Claus), and the 1887 Constitution (which was imposed on Kalakaua by the Honolulu Rifles, a local militia) was a response to his poor governance. The tipping point for the 1893 revolution was Liliuokalani's attempt to abrogate that constitution that she had sworn an oath to uphold.
As for the 1887 constitution itself, you'll note that the only racial group it discriminated against were *asians*. Kanakas and haoles were allowed to vote, but asians were explicitly excluded. This anti-asian racism continued through the Republic period (because it based the franchise on those people who were franchised under the Kingdom Constitution in effect in 1893), and then continued even further after annexation in 1898 (because the organic act of 1900 continued to defined the franchise as per the Republic). It wasn't until asians *born* in 1898 came of age that asians had any political power in the islands - the Territory of Hawaii was dominated by kanakas for the first 40 years.
So the fact of the matter is that it *was* an internal affair, but you have to realize that the internal sides were more complex than "native" versus "non-native" - you had a class hierarchy that put royalty and haoles on top, kanakas next, and then asians on the bottom.
As for history books, I'm ashamed at the kind of anti-white history that is pushed in the Hawaiian History textbooks - they're terribly ignorant and lack significant nuance. Kuykendall, Dawes, Andrade and Russ have a much more deep picture.
The story of the fall of the monarchy of the Kingdom of Hawaii really begins with Lunalilo (loved by the commoners, but a drunkard) who beat out Kalakaua (backed primarily by US interests), and then Kalakaua who beat out Queen Emma (who was backed primarily by british interests), and then Liliuokalani who was still mostly held under Claus Spreckel's sway. Decades of poor government, and massive debt, drove business interests in the islands to take up arms and restore sanity to government. Racism, despite the common "native hawaiian victim" trope, was focused against asians, and the annexation to the United States was eventually accepted and celebrated by the ex-Queen herself, who rose the US flag over her house in support of Hawaiian-American sailors in WWI. Heck the first congressional representative to the US Congress from the Territory of Hawaii was none other than Robert Wilcox, who fought in a failed rebellion against the Republic of Hawaii! Prince Kuhio followed him to Congress, and was indeed a proud American.
But these protesters, they want you to think there was some sort of trail of tears, or massive invasion, or land grab, or some other parallel to the Native American experience - there simply was no such thing.
Your history seems a bit off. The first constitution was granted by Kamehameha III in 1840, even though his predecessor Kamehameha the Great unified the islands by force, utilizing a multi-cultural coalition and leveraging the technology and tactics of the europeans.
Nothing about the constitution made any racial distinctions.
Furthermore those U.S. Marines were peacekeepers who remained strictly neutral - much to the chagrin of Liliuokalani's friend Grover Cleveland.
Furthermore the U.S. tried to intervene in the Republic of Hawaii by smuggling arms to the failed counter-revolution of 1895.
The people of the Committee of Safety included Sanford Dole, born and raised in Hawaii, who was both a representative in the legislature of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and a justice in the Kingdom of Hawaii Supreme Court.
The *problem* Liliuokalani had was that it was strictly an internal affair - she blamed minister Stevens for not bringing the marines to her aid.
Fuck you, the only person who ever conquered anyone in Hawaii was King Kamehameha the Great. He unified the islands with a multi-racial coalition, pushed his enemies off of Nu'uanu pali, embraced western values, and led to the only first world island nation in the Pacific. Your fantastical white-guilt view of history is the worst sort of ignorance.
"Accelerated cultural revolution" was a problem? Ka'ahumanu, who destroyed the native religion after her husband's death, was Hawai'i's first feminist, and the fact that her Kingdom became a first world country (a feat unmatched by any other pacific island nation) is a testament to a *successful* cultural revolution.
Small pox, yeah, that sucked, but the wisdom of our kupuna was to embrace western civilization, not to hold on to ancient, bloody traditions.
Niihau is actually owned by the haole Robinson family. They have decided that their great white contribution would be to segregate native Hawaiians for their island only.
While interesting from a lingual standpoint (since Niihau is really the only place that has continuously spoken olelo Hawai'i), it's kind of disturbing to think of the families there living at the mercy of the Robinson family and their strictures.
C'mon, mod parent up - this is not a troll, it's truth. Native Hawaiians were never conquered by *anyone* except Kamehameha the Great with his multiracial coalition in 1810.
Yes, it's worse. Given the mighty struggle that was the Civil Rights Movement, it's abhorrent that we would turn a blind eye to anti-white prejudice, and truly embrace hypocrisy.
Even worse, the anti-white sentiment in the islands turns into a culture that demeans academic excellence, proper english, and all of the things one needs to be a successful and productive member of society. Those non-whites who don't conform are considered "sellouts", and perpetuate a cycle of ignorance and poverty.
The Kingdom of Hawaii was established by a multi-racial coalition.
The first constitution of the Kingdom in 1840 declared all people "of one blood", establishing civil rights a hundred years before the US.
Iolani Palace had electricity before the White House.
Native Hawaiians dominated the Territorial Legislature from annexation until post WWII (when finally, asians coming back from the war gained educations and political power).
The only race ever not allowed to vote in Hawaii were asians, and haoles and kanakas were the top of the food chain on the plantations, with japanese, chinese and filipino holding the bottom rungs.
Where do you get your ignorant views of Hawaiian history?
The respectful thing to do is to use the wonderful bounty provided by Pele, and learn more about the heavens and the universe around us. To think that a people must be forever defined by the culture and traditions in existence the first time a white man saw them is racist and bigoted.
We Hawaiians aren't loincloth wearing stone age savages anymore. A new telescope on Mauna Kea is a righteous thing, honoring our kupuna and providing knowledge for future generations.
Hawaiian culture was stone age before the white man arrived. Frankly, the wisdom of King Kamehameha the Great, who unified the islands for the first time *ever* with a multi-racial coalition of partners, was incredibly farsighted. By embracing the technology and culture of the Europeans, Hawaii established itself as a jewel of the pacific, far more advanced and civilized than other island nations which didn't embrace western values and culture.
Yes, disease ravaged the original population, and yes, the imported asians for plantation labor were subjugated in terrible ways, but the overthrow of the monarchy in 1893 was an internal affair, and the independent Republic of Hawaii survived from 1894-1898 despite the unfriendly Cleveland administration (who wanted to restore his friend the Queen to the throne).
The current protesters are lying opportunists, capitalizing on your ignorance of history and your white guilt.
The earliest settlement of the Hawaiian islands was likely around 500-800 AD by Marquesan colonists. Around 1300 AD, Tahitians came and conquered the Marquesans, subjugating them as a slave class. Around 1500 AD, the Tahitians broke off contact with their homeland, and stopped all trade and contact. 1778, Captain Cook got ate.
"Hawaiians" as a unified people really only started existing in 1810, when the Kingdom of Hawaii unified the islands with a multi-racial coalition lead by King Kamehameha and his son-in-law, the british sailor John Young (aka, Keoni Olohana).
Shall we go back and separate the Angles and Saxons?
Hawaiians of any ancestry haven't been pushed of any island. The only island in the Hawaiian chain with any sort of racial exclusion is Niihau, which won't let you on without magic blood (fun fact, owned by haoles).
The hucksters who are trying to shakedown the TMT folks are lying opportunists, preying on your sense of white guilt in order to play the "wronged native".
The fact of the matter is this, Hawaii has been multi-racial since it's unification in 1810, and has had equal rights embedded in it's original constitution of 1840, declaring a hundred years before the US civil rights movement that all people were "of one blood". ALL Hawaiians deserve a say in how the land is used, not just one-drop kanakas who pretend that they are related to ali'i.
Blount was a fraud commissioned by Cleveland to help his buddy the Queen. The later bi-partisan Morgan Report, which took testimony, under oath, from all parties, proved it (http://morganreport.org)
David Sai is a fraud, who has stolen money from honest people lying to them about being the Regent of Hawaii.
In international law, the Provisional Government of the Kingdom Hawaii which overthrew the Queen was immediately recognized as de facto and de jure. In international law, the Republic of Hawaii was immediately recognized as de facto and de jure. In international law, the annexation between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States has always been recognized as de facto and de jure, with both parties fulfilling their obligations under the agreement.
Slashdot Mirror
...who in this case, are law abiding civilians.
You can't possibly stop crazy people from getting weapons - be it butter knives, glocks, or automobiles. What you can do is give innocent, law abiding civilians the opportunity to defend themselves in case of an emergency, while they wait for the swat team to arrive.
This kind of setup won't stop jihadis or the mentally ill from attacking in the first place, but it will limit the damage they can do. Normal criminals, on the other hand, will likely adjust their behavior to non-confrontational types of property crime, than robberies, rapes, etc, as they adjust to the new risk/reward ratio.
Mexico, which has exactly one government owned gun store, where it is highly illegal to own all kinds of firearms, still sees massive amounts of violence because criminals don't follow gun laws. They bribe cops, pay off smugglers, or just wait for the US federal government to come on down and sell them "Fast and Furious"ly.
So, since mass shootings can't be avoided by any laws, the best thing you can really do is make sure that those willing to train and carry, have the opportunity to defend themselves and others.
Self defense.
When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
Spot on. The left wing will be mollified because "look, the president made up new gun laws all by his widdle self!", and the right wing will be incensed because, "look, the president made up new gun laws all by his widdle self!".
Obviously, this guy is a uniter, not a divider :) /sarc
Sounds like a perfect time to register all birds.
Because of course, making broad-based laws because of incredibly rare events is always a good idea! /sarc off
...and slap a sensor on every power tool you can think of?
The word "robot" seems to be used to describe everything from a sci-fi automaton, to a remote control vehicle...
When they literally have to fix an "agreement" so that it isn't enforceable, is it really an agreement?
Maybe it would be better termed a "wishlist".
Anyone can have their own opinion - but the facts are clear.
The first major armed invasion of the original Marquesan colonists was from Tahiti. Continual warfare between ali'i was the rule of the day until Kamehameha the Great, with his multi-racial coalition, embracing western weaponry and tactics, unified the islands in 1810. The only other "invasion" was in 1843 when Paulet of the British Empire occupied Hawaii for five months, while a multi-racial coalition worked to restore the Kingdom (which was eventually successful).
The revolution of 1893 was an internal affair, driven by the monarchy's corruption. Both the provisional government and the republic of Hawaii were universally recognized by all nations that ever had diplomatic ties with the Kingdom.
The counter-revolution in 1895 was a failed attempt to restore the monarchy, and suppressing the counter-revolution was the independent Republic of Hawaii, with no help from other nations. The successful annexation in 1898 was fully recognized by all nations that ever had diplomatic ties to the Kingdom, and the Republic, and Statehood was fully recognized by all nations that ever had diplomatic ties to the Kingdom and the Republic in 1959.
The simple fact of the matter is that because of the wisdom of our kupuna, and the embrace of western values and technology early in the post-contact period, Hawaii is the only first world island nation in the pacific. If anything, Hawaiians have conquered the world, spreading their culture ("wiki"pedia, "akamai", being notable internet invasions of Hawaiian culture), and exercising enormous power within the greatest nation on earth. Heck, our own *president* was from Hawaii, and despite our small population, we get 1/50th representation in the Senate. Huge bonus, and one of the reasons Hawaii gets back so much federal $$.
The lying protesters and racial hucksters pandering to the poor and downtrodden in Hawaii, claiming that all of their problems are due to someone else, are pathetic.
You misunderstand the politics and demographics of the Hawaiian Kingdom - you had the 1%ers (royalty, businessmen), and the 99% (non-royalty, asian plantation workers). The internal revolution was a matter between 1%ers, and had little, if nothing, to do with the 99% (save the asians, who in 1887 were disenfranchised explicitly).
Furthermore, upon annexation to the United States, "natives" were on top for decades, thanks to the disenfranchised asians, and the american tradition of universal (mostly) suffrage. Prior to being a part of the US, there were all kinds of property qualifications on voting.
If you care to learn the story of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the Republic of Hawaii, and the Territory of Hawaii, and the State of Hawaii, you'll learn that it has no parallel to the Native American experience, despite the common word "native".
Yup, it's amazing what celestial navigation could do with stone age technology.
In fact, my family was part of the Hokule'a crew during the 1987 voyage.
That being said, one of the tragedies of the Tahitian invasion of Hawaii was their cessation of celestial navigation circa 1500AD (apparently due to some religious war between the homeland of Tahiti and the Hawaii colony). Thanks to Ben Finney (haole), and Mau Pialug (Micronesian), the art of celestial navigation was returned to Hawaiians in the 1970s.
So, once again, a multi-racial group managed to preserve a cultural treasure that had been lost by the violent Tahitian invaders...and we should all be grateful for that.
Let's get the history straight:
800AD - Marquesan Colony
1300AD - Tahitian Invasion
1810AD - Hawaiian Kingdom
- sandalwood slavery
1848AD - Great mahele, inception of plantation economy
- haoles and native hawaiians on top, asians on the bottom
1898AD - Annexation to america
- economy begins to be driven by military and tourism, as well as agriculture
Frankly, the population of Hawaii, including those with pre-1778 ancestry, is *incredibly* strong because they didn't cling to identification as "native" - that whole bit, while encouraged by the race baiting Minister of Everything Walter Murray Gibson, really only resurged in the 1970s.
Development happened in the islands so rapidly *precisely* because of the foresighted nature of both the pre-1778 and post-1778 inhabitants. What has been "hard on the culture" is the victimhood industry interested in identity politics.
Oh absolutely - there's no doubt that victimhood propaganda and race huckstering over the past 40 years has created a massive political monster. OHA, in particular, has been an egregious race-based institution, which only recently was forced to open up its electoral process...to which they responded with an even more racist Na'i Aupuni.
Kalakaua was corrupted by Claus Spreckels (aka King Claus), and the 1887 Constitution (which was imposed on Kalakaua by the Honolulu Rifles, a local militia) was a response to his poor governance. The tipping point for the 1893 revolution was Liliuokalani's attempt to abrogate that constitution that she had sworn an oath to uphold.
As for the 1887 constitution itself, you'll note that the only racial group it discriminated against were *asians*. Kanakas and haoles were allowed to vote, but asians were explicitly excluded. This anti-asian racism continued through the Republic period (because it based the franchise on those people who were franchised under the Kingdom Constitution in effect in 1893), and then continued even further after annexation in 1898 (because the organic act of 1900 continued to defined the franchise as per the Republic). It wasn't until asians *born* in 1898 came of age that asians had any political power in the islands - the Territory of Hawaii was dominated by kanakas for the first 40 years.
So the fact of the matter is that it *was* an internal affair, but you have to realize that the internal sides were more complex than "native" versus "non-native" - you had a class hierarchy that put royalty and haoles on top, kanakas next, and then asians on the bottom.
As for history books, I'm ashamed at the kind of anti-white history that is pushed in the Hawaiian History textbooks - they're terribly ignorant and lack significant nuance. Kuykendall, Dawes, Andrade and Russ have a much more deep picture.
The story of the fall of the monarchy of the Kingdom of Hawaii really begins with Lunalilo (loved by the commoners, but a drunkard) who beat out Kalakaua (backed primarily by US interests), and then Kalakaua who beat out Queen Emma (who was backed primarily by british interests), and then Liliuokalani who was still mostly held under Claus Spreckel's sway. Decades of poor government, and massive debt, drove business interests in the islands to take up arms and restore sanity to government. Racism, despite the common "native hawaiian victim" trope, was focused against asians, and the annexation to the United States was eventually accepted and celebrated by the ex-Queen herself, who rose the US flag over her house in support of Hawaiian-American sailors in WWI. Heck the first congressional representative to the US Congress from the Territory of Hawaii was none other than Robert Wilcox, who fought in a failed rebellion against the Republic of Hawaii! Prince Kuhio followed him to Congress, and was indeed a proud American.
But these protesters, they want you to think there was some sort of trail of tears, or massive invasion, or land grab, or some other parallel to the Native American experience - there simply was no such thing.
Your history seems a bit off. The first constitution was granted by Kamehameha III in 1840, even though his predecessor Kamehameha the Great unified the islands by force, utilizing a multi-cultural coalition and leveraging the technology and tactics of the europeans.
Nothing about the constitution made any racial distinctions.
Furthermore those U.S. Marines were peacekeepers who remained strictly neutral - much to the chagrin of Liliuokalani's friend Grover Cleveland.
Furthermore the U.S. tried to intervene in the Republic of Hawaii by smuggling arms to the failed counter-revolution of 1895.
The people of the Committee of Safety included Sanford Dole, born and raised in Hawaii, who was both a representative in the legislature of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and a justice in the Kingdom of Hawaii Supreme Court.
The *problem* Liliuokalani had was that it was strictly an internal affair - she blamed minister Stevens for not bringing the marines to her aid.
Neither - we judge beliefs on their merits, not their age.
That being said, there are very few stone age beliefs that have any merit.
Fuck you, the only person who ever conquered anyone in Hawaii was King Kamehameha the Great. He unified the islands with a multi-racial coalition, pushed his enemies off of Nu'uanu pali, embraced western values, and led to the only first world island nation in the Pacific. Your fantastical white-guilt view of history is the worst sort of ignorance.
"Accelerated cultural revolution" was a problem? Ka'ahumanu, who destroyed the native religion after her husband's death, was Hawai'i's first feminist, and the fact that her Kingdom became a first world country (a feat unmatched by any other pacific island nation) is a testament to a *successful* cultural revolution.
Small pox, yeah, that sucked, but the wisdom of our kupuna was to embrace western civilization, not to hold on to ancient, bloody traditions.
Niihau is actually owned by the haole Robinson family. They have decided that their great white contribution would be to segregate native Hawaiians for their island only.
While interesting from a lingual standpoint (since Niihau is really the only place that has continuously spoken olelo Hawai'i), it's kind of disturbing to think of the families there living at the mercy of the Robinson family and their strictures.
C'mon, mod parent up - this is not a troll, it's truth. Native Hawaiians were never conquered by *anyone* except Kamehameha the Great with his multiracial coalition in 1810.
Yes, it's worse. Given the mighty struggle that was the Civil Rights Movement, it's abhorrent that we would turn a blind eye to anti-white prejudice, and truly embrace hypocrisy.
Even worse, the anti-white sentiment in the islands turns into a culture that demeans academic excellence, proper english, and all of the things one needs to be a successful and productive member of society. Those non-whites who don't conform are considered "sellouts", and perpetuate a cycle of ignorance and poverty.
What challenges are you talking about?
The Kingdom of Hawaii was established by a multi-racial coalition.
The first constitution of the Kingdom in 1840 declared all people "of one blood", establishing civil rights a hundred years before the US.
Iolani Palace had electricity before the White House.
Native Hawaiians dominated the Territorial Legislature from annexation until post WWII (when finally, asians coming back from the war gained educations and political power).
The only race ever not allowed to vote in Hawaii were asians, and haoles and kanakas were the top of the food chain on the plantations, with japanese, chinese and filipino holding the bottom rungs.
Where do you get your ignorant views of Hawaiian history?
The respectful thing to do is to use the wonderful bounty provided by Pele, and learn more about the heavens and the universe around us. To think that a people must be forever defined by the culture and traditions in existence the first time a white man saw them is racist and bigoted.
We Hawaiians aren't loincloth wearing stone age savages anymore. A new telescope on Mauna Kea is a righteous thing, honoring our kupuna and providing knowledge for future generations.
Shame on the protesters! Auwe!
Hawaiian culture was stone age before the white man arrived. Frankly, the wisdom of King Kamehameha the Great, who unified the islands for the first time *ever* with a multi-racial coalition of partners, was incredibly farsighted. By embracing the technology and culture of the Europeans, Hawaii established itself as a jewel of the pacific, far more advanced and civilized than other island nations which didn't embrace western values and culture.
Yes, disease ravaged the original population, and yes, the imported asians for plantation labor were subjugated in terrible ways, but the overthrow of the monarchy in 1893 was an internal affair, and the independent Republic of Hawaii survived from 1894-1898 despite the unfriendly Cleveland administration (who wanted to restore his friend the Queen to the throne).
The current protesters are lying opportunists, capitalizing on your ignorance of history and your white guilt.
The earliest settlement of the Hawaiian islands was likely around 500-800 AD by Marquesan colonists. Around 1300 AD, Tahitians came and conquered the Marquesans, subjugating them as a slave class. Around 1500 AD, the Tahitians broke off contact with their homeland, and stopped all trade and contact. 1778, Captain Cook got ate.
"Hawaiians" as a unified people really only started existing in 1810, when the Kingdom of Hawaii unified the islands with a multi-racial coalition lead by King Kamehameha and his son-in-law, the british sailor John Young (aka, Keoni Olohana).
Shall we go back and separate the Angles and Saxons?
Hawaiians of any ancestry haven't been pushed of any island. The only island in the Hawaiian chain with any sort of racial exclusion is Niihau, which won't let you on without magic blood (fun fact, owned by haoles).
The hucksters who are trying to shakedown the TMT folks are lying opportunists, preying on your sense of white guilt in order to play the "wronged native".
The fact of the matter is this, Hawaii has been multi-racial since it's unification in 1810, and has had equal rights embedded in it's original constitution of 1840, declaring a hundred years before the US civil rights movement that all people were "of one blood". ALL Hawaiians deserve a say in how the land is used, not just one-drop kanakas who pretend that they are related to ali'i.
Blount was a fraud commissioned by Cleveland to help his buddy the Queen. The later bi-partisan Morgan Report, which took testimony, under oath, from all parties, proved it (http://morganreport.org)
David Sai is a fraud, who has stolen money from honest people lying to them about being the Regent of Hawaii.
In international law, the Provisional Government of the Kingdom Hawaii which overthrew the Queen was immediately recognized as de facto and de jure. In international law, the Republic of Hawaii was immediately recognized as de facto and de jure. In international law, the annexation between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States has always been recognized as de facto and de jure, with both parties fulfilling their obligations under the agreement.