5,175
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Debate:Is the American Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands justified? (view source)
Revision as of 19:27, July 20, 2007
, 19:27, July 20, 2007categorize
==Affirmative Opinions==
What definies the right of one country to a portion of land? While I'm prepared to change my mind-- I am rather uneducated on the subject of hawaii-- I must take the following position: America was wrong to annex Hawaii initialy, but at this point there is nothing we can do to ammend the wrong; we can't exactly kick them out of the union just because we never should have taken over way back in 1898. We have inherited a Hawaii that our great-grandfathers wrongfully annexed. Even so, Hawaian culture has been integrated with American culture; Americans and Hawaians have become American alike; at this point our occupation of hawaii ''is'' justified. That is to say: Our occupation of Hawaii, though wrongfully attained by our forebears, is now in the best intrest of all concerned.
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:21, 30 January 2007 (EST)
:I kinda intended for this to be a one-time forum-type-thing. Like everyone gives their opinion once. -[[User:Working for Him|Working for Him]] 22:36, 4 February 2007 (EST)
Great! I will assuredly not give mine again.
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 19:23, 5 February 2007 (EST)
While I lean "yes" ([[Barack Obama]] being to me a sufficient justification for annexing Hawaii), it's fun to think about [[alternate histories]] of the late 19th century in which Hawaii is never added to the U. S., such as suggested in the article on the [[Confederate States of America]]. Even had it not been, Hawaii would surely have remained a gathering spot and melting pot for people from all over the world, as it was in 1961. I've been there -- go now, while you still don't need a passport! I'm also surprised to see that this debate appears to have fizzled out four months ago, before I had even heard of Conservapedia. -- [[User talk:Amyz|Amyz]] 18:20, June 1, 2007
==Negative Opinions==
'''NO!!!''' We never had any right to Hawaii the Americans were there as missionaries bbut their children turned into greedy businessmen who stole Hawaii from under Queen Liliuokalani's nose! -[[User:Working for Him|Working for Him]] 22:49, 30 January 2007 (EST)
NO - just as the occupation of North America by a bunch of European immigrants and the bloody suppression of the aboriginal inhabitants cannot be justified!
Good point! Every point above could be used on every state in the union! [[User:Grinder|Grinder]] 21:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
No, but just as we're not going to give back North America, we're not giving back the islands. That's manifest destiny for ya. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 10:30, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
[[category:debate]]
What definies the right of one country to a portion of land? While I'm prepared to change my mind-- I am rather uneducated on the subject of hawaii-- I must take the following position: America was wrong to annex Hawaii initialy, but at this point there is nothing we can do to ammend the wrong; we can't exactly kick them out of the union just because we never should have taken over way back in 1898. We have inherited a Hawaii that our great-grandfathers wrongfully annexed. Even so, Hawaian culture has been integrated with American culture; Americans and Hawaians have become American alike; at this point our occupation of hawaii ''is'' justified. That is to say: Our occupation of Hawaii, though wrongfully attained by our forebears, is now in the best intrest of all concerned.
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:21, 30 January 2007 (EST)
:I kinda intended for this to be a one-time forum-type-thing. Like everyone gives their opinion once. -[[User:Working for Him|Working for Him]] 22:36, 4 February 2007 (EST)
Great! I will assuredly not give mine again.
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 19:23, 5 February 2007 (EST)
While I lean "yes" ([[Barack Obama]] being to me a sufficient justification for annexing Hawaii), it's fun to think about [[alternate histories]] of the late 19th century in which Hawaii is never added to the U. S., such as suggested in the article on the [[Confederate States of America]]. Even had it not been, Hawaii would surely have remained a gathering spot and melting pot for people from all over the world, as it was in 1961. I've been there -- go now, while you still don't need a passport! I'm also surprised to see that this debate appears to have fizzled out four months ago, before I had even heard of Conservapedia. -- [[User talk:Amyz|Amyz]] 18:20, June 1, 2007
==Negative Opinions==
'''NO!!!''' We never had any right to Hawaii the Americans were there as missionaries bbut their children turned into greedy businessmen who stole Hawaii from under Queen Liliuokalani's nose! -[[User:Working for Him|Working for Him]] 22:49, 30 January 2007 (EST)
NO - just as the occupation of North America by a bunch of European immigrants and the bloody suppression of the aboriginal inhabitants cannot be justified!
Good point! Every point above could be used on every state in the union! [[User:Grinder|Grinder]] 21:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
No, but just as we're not going to give back North America, we're not giving back the islands. That's manifest destiny for ya. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 10:30, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
[[category:debate]]