Iraq annexing Kuwait = U.S. annexing Texas

[mystic2311]

samclemm, obviously #3. The other two items are beyond dispute. I don’t know about the election results you mentioned, and your link doesn’t work.
But the statehood question was a double fraud:

http://www.hawaii-nation.org/statehood2.html

1. The only two choices were become a state or remain a territory. The choice of independence was not on the ballot.

2. Native hawaiians who did not choose to become US citizens could not vote. American servicemen who were posted temporarily in the Islands and had no real stake in the matter were allowed to vote. So of course the results were skewed. Of course voting is a sacred democratic ritual which no one would ever attempt to influence, alter, skew, etc. Just ask Chuck Hagel.

The information that was suppressed was a petition that was signed by a number of native hawaiians who OPPOSED statehood. That petition was recently part of a Smithsonian exhibit. Who suppressed it? Who do you think? The US government, Dole pineapple? You must always ask, cui bono? (but not Sonny).

Are you really so naive as to think that there are no coverups or conspiracies in the world? What are you, a coincidence theorist?

[mystic2311]

sorry, the 1897 petition against the annexation of hawaii is the one I am thinking of:

Educator Resources

That doesn’t alter the fact that the 1959 statehood vote was rigged.

[Monty]

mystic: Could you provide a cite, with quote, to bolster your assertion that US Servicemembers stationed in the Territory of Hawaii were registering as voters there.

And, if samclem doesn’t mind, I’d like to point out that he’s not a coincidence theorist. Rather, he’s a critical thinker, something which most conspiracy theorists aren’t.

[Asylum]

I’m learning a bit about Texas, Hawaii and Kuwait in this thread, stuff I didn’t know.

What I do know is that Mystic2311 improperly used a loaded term.

Most of the genocide (unintentional perhaps) was done by viruses early on, viruses as mundane as the common cold.

Tossing "genocide into dictionary.com gets:

systematic killing of a racial or cultural group

I find it difficult to reconcile “unintentional” with “systematic.”

Would you care to elaborate or was it a poor word choice?

[Irishman]

mystic2311 said:

My comment about Kuwait and Texas was not historical, it was hypothetical. It was also rather elliptical, but I thought you guys were smart enough to figure it out.

So making shit up is now a legal debate method? Woohoo! Oh wait, I’m not creative enough for that to help me much.

You made an erroneous comparison based upon a twisted interpretation of a historical incident, and then dropped it into a conversation to justify something else as if it was an accurate representation. Sorry, that doesn’t fly.

mystic2311 said:

Doesn’t anybody here have a sense of humor?

I think most of us are laughing, we just can’t tell the difference between your jokes and your serious claims. They sound equally ridiculous. Maybe you should use smileys so we can tell them apart.

[mystic2311]

I looked up systematic in Webster’s New World Dictionary, Third College Edition. It says:

systematic: constituting or based on a system.

Genocide by virus whether intentional as in the Amherst variety or unintentional is based on a system–the immune system. Basically, because the Europeans were slobs and slept with their animals, they became immune to zoonotic diseases. The more pristine new world inhabitants had not this immunity, so they were systematically wiped out. The arrow of disease as they call it mostly worked to the advantage of the Europeans (as chronicled in Guns, Germs, and Steel, another book I wish I had time to read). It was unintentional genocide, and saved them the trouble of the intentional genocide or enslavement they would have carried out anyway.

[mystic2311]

*Originally posted by Irishman *

I think most of us are laughing, we just can’t tell the difference between your jokes and your serious claims. They sound equally ridiculous. Maybe you should use smileys so we can tell them apart. **

Good! I am always glad to entertain. I am thinking of taking my act on the road, so I am rehearsing my material with you guys, the most critical audience in the world. If I can make you laugh, I can make anybody laugh!

[Monty]

In other words, you’re still making stuff up.

[mystic2311]

*Originally posted by Monty *
**mystic: Could you provide a cite, with quote, to bolster your assertion that US Servicemembers stationed in the Territory of Hawaii were registering as voters there.

And, if samclem doesn’t mind, I’d like to point out that he’s not a coincidence theorist. Rather, he’s a critical thinker, something which most conspiracy theorists aren’t. **

No problem. The original cite I gave above says “associated with the military.” That wasn’t good enough for my rigourous critical thinking processes, so here is a better cite: (3rd paragraph down):

March 12, 1959, the U.S. Congress passed the Hawaii Statehood Admission Act (PL.86-3), before a vote on the issue by the colonized Kanaka Maoli people, in violation of the Kanaka Maoli right to self-determination.

Later, on June 27, 1959, a Statehood Plebiscite in Hawaii posed only one option on the ballot: immediate statehood. The colonial establishment trumpeted statehood as “equal opportunity and autonomy.” The only other (unstated) option was for Hawaii to remain as a territory. No reference was made to two other options-independence or free association-as provided by UNGAR 742 of 1953.

All U.S. citizens in Hawaii, including U.S. military personal, were permitted to vote, instead of only the colonized Kanaka Maoli people who were the only island residents eligible for the execise of self-determination and who comprised only 16 percent of the resident population. The vote outcome was as predicted with a large majority in favor of immediate statehood.

On September 17, 1959, unknown to the general public, the U.S. misinformed the UN the “Alaska and Hawaii had attained full measure of self-government as admitted states.”

http://www.freehawaii.org/writofproh.html

Conspiracy theorists can be critical thinkers too. I wonder if the same shenanigans were used in the Texas annexation vote, you know only white Protestants can vote, no blacks, Mexicans, catholics, etc.

Can any critical thinkers out there prove that the Texas vote was not rigged?

[tomndebb]

Conspiracy theorists can be critical thinkers too.

Possibly, but there is no evidence for it on this thread.

The 1898 Hawaiian vote was not done “at gunpoint.” The ethnic Hawaiians were simply overwhelmed by the ethnic Europeans who had come to dominate the island politics–most becoming citizens of the nation of Hawaii in the 70 years prior to the annexation. This is not a claim that it was a “good thing,” only a statement that the “gunpoint” claim is bogus.

Similarly, the claim that only ethnic Hawaiians should have been allowed to vote in 1959 requires one to retroactively redefine who was eligible, using criteria that were not applicable at the time.
Was the vote for independence left off the ballot? Absolutely. Was it some great, silent conspiracy that has been hidden all these years? Utter nonsense. The independence movement was such common knowledge in 1959 that it appeared in Mitchener’s Hawaii, published before the vote was taken. And, contrary to your claim, no ethnic Hawaiians were prohibited from voting, although a small percentage did boycott the election.

The claim that the “Kanaka Maoli people . . . were the only island residents eligible for the execise of self-determination.” is wishful thinking on the part of the current independence movement. Even in 1959, the number of haoles with ethnic Hawaiian ancestry was substantial–and there is no reason under international law to deprive the descendants of European and American (and Asian) immigrants from the period 1820 to 1940 a right to vote, once they had settled and established residency.

[mystic2311]

*Originally posted by tomndebb *
**Possibly, but there is no evidence for it on this thread.

The 1898 Hawaiian vote was not done “at gunpoint.” The ethnic Hawaiians were simply overwhelmed by the ethnic Europeans who had come to dominate the island politics–most becoming citizens of the nation of Hawaii in the 70 years prior to the annexation. This is not a claim that it was a “good thing,” only a statement that the “gunpoint” claim is bogus.

Similarly, the claim that only ethnic Hawaiians should have been allowed to vote in 1959 requires one to retroactively redefine who was eligible, using criteria that were not applicable at the time.
Was the vote for independence left off the ballot? Absolutely. Was it some great, silent conspiracy that has been hidden all these years? Utter nonsense. The independence movement was such common knowledge in 1959 that it appeared in Mitchener’s Hawaii, published before the vote was taken. And, contrary to your claim, no ethnic Hawaiians were prohibited from voting, although a small percentage did boycott the election.

The claim that the “Kanaka Maoli people . . . were the only island residents eligible for the execise of self-determination.” is wishful thinking on the part of the current independence movement. Even in 1959, the number of haoles with ethnic Hawaiian ancestry was substantial–and there is no reason under international law to deprive the descendants of European and American (and Asian) immigrants from the period 1820 to 1940 a right to vote, once they had settled and established residency. **

Most of your claims can be dismissed as colonial rubbish. But you are clearly wrong about one thing: the 1893 overthrow was at gunpoint. It is common knowledge, so much so that I feel embarassed having to provide a cite for you, but I will:

“Queen Liliuokalani was toppled Jan. 17, 1893 by a rebellion led by the American minister to Hawaii
and supported by U.S. military forces.”

http://www.hawaii-nation.org/acknowledges.html

Why do you think Clinton apologized for the overthrow in 1993?

Further example of your confusion is your reference to an 1898 Hawaiian vote. There was no 1898 Hawaiian vote, at least not by Hawaiians. In 1898, the US Senate and House voted to annex Hawaii:

“On July 7, 1898, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee submitted the proposition for Hawaii's annexation by a joint resolution of Congress, requiring a mere majority of both the Senate and House of Representatives. The U.S. Constitution, on the other hand, required all treaties to be ratified by 2/3rd vote of those present in the Senate. The resolution was adopted by a simple majority. The Hawaiians were shocked by this tactic. The U.S. proceeded to extend its colonial arm over Hawaii.”

http://www.alohaquest.com/archive/annexrally.htm

It appears you don’t know anything about Hawaiian history. Oh I see, you get your history from reading Michener. That explains everything.

Come over here for vacation sometime. There are plenny bruddahs who will set you straight on Hawaiian history.

Aloha, Mark

[tomndebb]

It appears you don’t know anything about Hawaiian history.

I don’t claim to. Of course, I do not get my “history” from Michener, I only cited him to disprove your claim that there was something secret about opposition to statehood and preference for independence–events that appear in best-sellers have a difficult time being called secret.

I admit that I had forgotten the role of the U.S. military in the formation of the 1893 “republic”, having confused it with the “insurrection” of 1895 (by which time the haoles were already in power). You are asserting that the 1893 events were simply Hawaii being “taken at gunpoint” by the U.S. I would counter that the actual events were more complex than that and that the “takeover” was by Hawaiian haoles supported by the U.S. minister. Now, you can argue that the haoles should not have been allowed to do that, and I agree. I have never claimed that the annexation or any event leading up to it was fair or just.

There was a vote in Hawaii in 1898 (although I am sure that you will disallow its validity), however, there was never a military invasion. Hawaii was taken in the same way as Texas–by swamping the indigenous population with immigrants who then took it over, rather than by an active military invasion. Sanford Dole and his cronies were nearly all “Hawaiian” in the sense that they were born and raised in the islands. Many of them had intermarried with the indigenous peoples just as many members of the Hawaiian royal court had intermarried with the invading Europeans/Americans. (Queen Liliuokalani, of course, had no haole antecedents, but the same was not true of her court. She, herself, married a haole.) With all that intermarriage going on, the notion that only “pure” Hawaiians should have been eligible to vote on issues of self-determination falls into the realm of wishful thinking.

[mystic2311]

Queen Lilioukalani was overthrown at gunpoint by US Marines who had invaded the island. This is a historical fact that is beyond dispute. Hell, my 12 year old daughter knows it. I really don’t where you are coming from.

http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/archive/arc10.htm

"At this point the revolution-oriented vigilantes now went into full gear. Their ultra secret group took the respectable-sounding title Committee of Safety, following the less-than-respectable example of
the French Revolution. That same night that the queen attempted to restore the constitution, the so-called Committee of Safety met with prominent members of the business community, and cooked up full-scale plans for the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom. They drafted documents for the new “government,” and anointed Sanford Dole, a Missionary Boy, to be president. (Ironically,“democratic principles” were only relevant to the Missionary Boys when it seemed to serve their interests, such as when it hamstrung the native Hawaiians, and made them defenseless against the plans of the Missionary Boys). The coup plotters knew that they had the support of the U.S. Representative John Stevens, who was an unrepentant expansionist.

The coup plotters felt that time was running out, because they felt certain that the queen was planning moves of her own. This only increased the tensions. Two days later John Stevens sent word to an American warship that was anchored in the harbor, to land a company of United States Marines to protect U.S. interests. (Remember United Fruit in Guatemala?) This was in clear violation of the law, because Stevens had no authority to order the landing of U.S. forces, which he
did solely upon his own discretion. Four boatloads of Marines came ashore with Gattling guns and 14,000 rounds of ammunition, two revolving cannons, and a hospital unit.

The landing of forces was wholly a violation of all the standards and norms of international law, and the pretense of legality was maintained right up to the end. The queen watched 162 American
soldiers march up to the Palace, and when they passed it, they lowered their flags and made a traditional salute with drumroll in the direction of the queen. By that evening, the soldiers had taken
up positions facing Iolani Palace and the queen, and the following day the so-called Committee of Safety – a vigilante group – proclaimed a new Hawaiian government, under the control of the
Missionary Boys. Within hours, Representative Stevens diplomatically recognized the usurper-regime on behalf of the Federal Government of the United States.

The queen was ordered to resign. She met with her Cabinet under the duress of the guns of the Marines, deciding not to resist the usurpation of her authority on the grounds that blood might be
shed. She refused to acknowledge the authority of the usurper Provisional Government set up through the treachery of her own ministers, and instead surrendered as a sovereign queen to the
United States on 17 January, 1893, a day that will TRULY live in infamy forever. She always believed that the United States, once it realized the great injustice forced upon her, would restore
her to the throne that by legal right, was hers. News of the coup did not reach the outside world for a full ten days."

[brianmelendez]

*Originally posted by mystic2311 *
**This is a historical fact that is beyond dispute. Hell, my 12 year old daughter knows it. I really don’t where you are coming from.

http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/archive/arc10.htm
**

I have been following this thread with some interest, and have enjoyed learning about the annexation of Hawaii, about which I claim no expertise whatever. But it seems to me that mystic2311’s sources are becoming questionable. First, I doubt that there is any such thing as “a historical fact that is beyond dispute.” And I am not sure that a 12-year-old who agrees with her father is credible corroboration, at least not without knowing more about her credentials and sources.

I checked out the website that mystic2311 cites and, from my viewpoint, it also lacks credibility. I surfed briefly around the website and I can’t find anyone who claims authorship, except for an obituary for a deceased “founder.” And some of this website’s claims seem at least debatable. For example, on the website’s first page:

Modern pundits marvel at the fact that during the recent election scandals, there were no tanks in the streets. They seem to have forgotten that under the thumb of the police-state republic, there are well over 700,000 police, as well as a National Guard, and several million troops, all of whom could be called out at a moment’s notice. . . . The fact that there IS a hereditary elite in the United States, that has existed since before the Revolution, is readily evident to anyone who has read beyond materials designed for an 8th grade student. . . . Due to the after-effects of the American Revolution, when power was privatized, with the abolition of the nobility, there also came the abolition of a sense of obligation on the part of the wealthy, to give back to society.

In the Federal republic’s constant effort to elevate its leaders into demigods, the observances of George Washington’s and Abraham Lincoln’s birthdays were combined into the all-encompassing tribute to the presidency we know as Presidents’ Day. Most Americans think that the Presidency is the culmination of a long process of evolution, inferring that it is the best form of leadership known to humanity. The fact that the Presidency was modeled after the dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell – because the Puritan Commonwealth was the only republican non-royalist precedent in Anglo-American constitutional history – is largely unknown in the United States.

These statements may be factually supportable, I don’t know. But they are overly sensationalistic and, as far as I can tell, published anonymously. mystic2311, do you have other sources that support your viewpoint, or is this website it?

[Monty]

mystic: I believe you are conveniently ignoring how all the islands of Hawaii became a single nation in the first place.

[samclem]

mystic. That last website you offered reads like a bad parody. It is certainly not written by an objective researcher. It reminds me of tales of the Russian Revolution, as written by members of the Royal Family.

There surely are scholarly books on the subject. I would suggest a trip to the library for you and your daughter.

(Try to avoid books which describe the event with words like *vigilantes, annointed, Missionary Boys, usurper-regime, ‘a day that will truly live in infamy’, * etc. If it has footnotes, that would be a good thing).

[mystic2311]

*Originally posted by Monty *
**mystic: I believe you are conveniently ignoring how all the islands of Hawaii became a single nation in the first place. **

Like most nations, they were united through bloodshed, brutality, and duplicity. But that is irrelevant to the present discussion.

[mystic2311]

*Originally posted by samclem *
**mystic. That last website you offered reads like a bad parody. It is certainly not written by an objective researcher. It reminds me of tales of the Russian Revolution, as written by members of the Royal Family.

There surely are scholarly books on the subject. I would suggest a trip to the library for you and your daughter.

(Try to avoid books which describe the event with words like *vigilantes, annointed, Missionary Boys, usurper-regime, ‘a day that will truly live in infamy’, * etc. If it has footnotes, that would be a good thing). **

Yet the Russian Revolution happened, did it not? By your logic, since Bulwer-Lyttons “dark and stormy night” has been elevated to the paragon of bad writing, storms do not happen. I have a theory that the American Revolution did not happen. Please prove to me that the American Revolution happened (and you have to avoid books written in English, only in Iroquois or Cherokee).
BTW, my daughter know Hawaiian history because they teach it in the schools here. I would bet most people here know of this incident; but I guess we will have to report for imperial revisionist reprogramming.

There are lots of scholarly books on the subject of Hawaiian history at the University of Hawaii where I work. Unfortunately, they have not been converted into PDF files, so I have to physically go there. According to the reference librarian at the Hawaii-Pacific collection, the scholarly work that is the primary reference is “The Hawaiian Kingdom” by Ralph S. Kuykendall, University of Hawaii Press (1967). The narrative on pp. 582-650 confirms all the details in the “bad parody” you refer to, including that American troops from the U.S.S. Boston landed on the afternoon of January 16, and that their presence assured the success of the revolutionaries Dole and Thurston in overthrowing Queen Lilioukalani on Jan. 17, 1893. It was not a bloodless coup as I thought; a Hawaiian policeman named Leialoha was shot in the shoulder when he attempted to restrain a wagon full of munitions that was being driven by one of the revolutionaries.

I would be happy to type in all 68 pages, but it would take up a lot of board space, and I really do have to get back to work. I consider this argument over.

[Monty]

Actually, it’s not. You are all bent out of shape about, let’s be factual about it, a group of Hawaiian citizens taking action on Hawaiian territory to effect a change in the government of Hawaii. But your little twist on it is that when it suits your argument, whatever happened that’s good is the result of the folks you favour and whatever happened, even if unintentional, is automatically the intentions of the folks you don’t favour.

The government of Hawaii made their choices as to who could and couldn’t get citizenship of that country when it was a country. Some of those citizens initiated a rebellion and overthrew the government and then set up a new government. That government petitioned the United States to annex the country. After annexation, there was then a movement for statehood. Finally, statehood was attained.

In short, you’re pissed off at the United States and don’t give a whit about facts so long as you can gripe about the United States. That’s gone beyone (beneath, actually) historical revisionism all the way to just flat out lazy.

[mystic2311]

You have it all wrong. What makes me angry is when corporations subvert the democratic process and overthrow governments with the help of the US military, and then lie about it.

All that naked brutality warrior chief stuff is honest at least. Genghis Khan never pretended like he was doing a favor for all those people he raped and pillaged.