How native Hawaiians feel about the occupation regime

It would be up to the people who live there to figure out how to run things. This is certainly not an argument for US to continue occupying them.

how is it an “occupation” when Hawaiians themselves voted to become a state by a 94+% majority?
On June 27, 1959, a referendum asked residents of Hawaiʻi to vote on the statehood bill; 94.3% voted in favor of statehood and 5.7% opposed it. (source)
- If voting "yes" on a referendum to be annexed is an accurate way of knowing that the majority of the populace supports annexation, does the same logic apply to Crimea being annexed by Russia? If not, why not?
  
  If voting “yes” on a referendum to be annexed
  inventing some history again are you? because this never happened. if you have to stoop this low to try to “score points” how much lower will you stoop?
  
  So you don't have an argument and have to make shit up. Cool. Judging by your other responses in the thread, you're a shill trying to astroturf support for the U.S., so Imma block you 💅
  
  So you don’t have an argument and have to make shit up.
  “I know you are but what am I?” is not a convincing argument. most people learn this when they’re 5.
  Judging by your other responses in the thread, you’re a shill trying to astroturf support for the U.S., so Imma block you 💅
  nah, just argue the facts, which I provide. you don’t like it and hurl childish insults in response. blocking me is doing ME a favor. bye!
  
  this never happened
  Uhhh https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/03/16/290525623/crimeans-vote-on-splitting-from-ukraine-to-join-russia
  The referendum had widely been expected to pass; Crimea's parliament has already voted to seek annexation by Russia...
  Update at 3 p.m. ET: The Polls Are Closed; 93 Percent Approval Cited
  
  Uhhh https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/03/16/290525623/crimeans-vote-on-splitting-from-ukraine-to-join-russia
  there’s moving the goalposts, then there’s moving them 55 years into the future and to the other side of the planet.
  We’re taking about Hawaii here. you’re so lost and hate the US and “The West™®©” so much that you think this is one of your Ukaine/Russia arguments. WOW….
  
  You said "[a yes vote on Russia annexing Crimea] never happened."
  I showed that it did.
  You responded with "We’re taking about Hawaii here."
  Get the fuck out of here
  
  You said “[a yes vote on Russia annexing Crimea] never happened.”
  YOU said that. keep your words out of my mouth.
  I showed that it did.
  you know everyone can see your comments and my comments, right? that is very much not what happened, as anyone with eyeballs can see. I’m sorry that you’re having trouble seeing reality. consult a physician.
  You responded with “We’re taking about Hawaii here.”
  because we are, despite your attempts to change the subject. are you lost again?
- The choice was to become a state or remain a territory. Either yes or no would have had Hawaiian peoples occupied. Statehood could be seen as a regaining a scrap of self determination but all it ended up doing was impoverishing the natives and ceding all wealth to colonizing capitalists. This is a primarily function of bourgeois democracy.
  
  by voting to become a state - especially to such an overwhelming majority - you can hardly argue a dispositive attitude towards the US being there or towards joining the union. so, not only have you moved the goalposts, you’re arguing a straw man and your own emotions.
  I’m sticking with provable facts.
  
  Once again they were given a choice between becoming a state or remaining a territory. Not for independence. It'd be like offering a scrap of bread to a starving man in exchange for the man legitimizing your ability to keep him malnourished.
  The ole adage of "the only thing worse than being exploited is not being exploited " comes to mind.
  Since you can't be assed to read your own damn wiki article I assume you're just in bad faith.
  
  Once again they were given a choice between becoming a state or remaining a territory
  
  Hawaiians could have protested, revolted, or one of many other options. But they didn’t.
  That’s the thing about facts— your opinions don’t magically make them untrue, regardless of how many folksy sayings or logical fallacies you conjure.
  
  🐷 💩 🥎
  Lol your mind sure is something.
  
  Like the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement which began actively protesting and gained support in the 1960s, pretty soon after the referendum?
  
  Like the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement
  sure. why not? people can object to or protest anything.
  the fee expression of speech in a democratic forum, however, certainly argues against any of this being “fascist”, though. thanks of pointing this out!
  
  So then your point about
  Hawaiians could have protested, revolted, or one of many other options. But they didn’t.
  Is false
  So to quote you
  That’s the thing about facts— your opinions don’t magically make them untrue, regardless of how many folksy sayings or logical fallacies you conjure.
  
  Is false
  only if you intentionally take them out of context and twist the meaning. because they didn’t do that before the vote. as you said:
  Like the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement which began actively protesting and gained support in the 1960s, pretty soon after the referendum?
  so, despite your obviously bad-faith and disingenuous argument, I’m not as stupid as you think I am. nice try.
  That’s the thing about facts— your opinions don’t magically make them untrue, regardless of how many folksy sayings or logical fallacies you conjure. NOR how much you try to twist my words.
  
  What if 90% of Hawaiians had revolted (and lost) while 90%+ of the other 10% of Hawaiians voted in the referendum?
  
  You’re the one reducing possibilities. Your dichotomy is between staying a territory and becoming a state. While being a state is nominally better than being outright occupied subjects, prior to colonization they were better off, and you suggest decolonization and not being colonized aren’t options.
  
  You’re the one reducing possibilities. Your dichotomy is between staying a territory and becoming a state
  I never made this argument, but several others here did. in fact, I, several times, pointed out that there were other possibilities.
  clearly you’re confused.
- Should I kill you with my sword or with my gun?
  Sorry, "I want to live" was not an option on the ballot
  
  sigh…
  Should I kill you with my sword or with my gun?
  
  Sorry, “I want to live” was not an option on the ballot
  
  Referendum is literally: "Would you like to be a state or a territory? Independence is not an option."
  Sigh...
  
  False dichotomy is when you point out that people might want something other than two shit binary choices.
  
  your lack of ability to imagine another option (such as revolt, etc.) does not mean you “win” the argument. it just means you lose because you lack imagination.
  
  YOUR ARGUMENT is that the result of this referendum matters. It doesn't because, as you've identified, both options are the same. As for Hawaiian resistance, they've been fighting continuously for a hundred years and, like every other liberation movement against the USA, have been ruthlessly suppressed by the fascist police and petty-bourgeoise militia of the "middle class". And, like every other liberation struggle, victory is inevitable as the empire continues to crumble beneath the weight of its sins.
  
  Also, neat how you've got five devoted followers upvoting you within two minutes on every one of your shitty empire-shilling posts for the last several hours
  
  But no down votes!
  
  Yeah I've seen at least two of this dork's alts posting the same dumb infographics of logical fallacies that they themselves are committing without a hint of irony.
  
  YOUR ARGUMENT is that the result of this referendum matters
  The FACTS bear that out. you’re attacking me because I pointed that out.
  It doesn’t because, as you’ve identified, both options are the same
  I didn’t say that, you did. keep your words out of my mouth.
  As for Hawaiian resistance, they’ve been fighting continuously for a hundred years and, like every other liberation movement against the USA, have been ruthlessly suppressed by the fascist police and petty-bourgeoise militia of the “middle class”.
  relevant to the argument, and a
  
  you guys are addicted to logical fallacies
  And, like every other liberation struggle, victory is inevitable as the empire continues to crumble beneath the weight of its sins.
  cute story. also irrelevant
  Also, neat how you’ve got five devoted followers upvoting you within two minutes on every one of your shitty empire-shilling posts for the last several hours
  jealousy is an ugly look
- from your own link
  In 1897, over 21,000 Natives, representing the overwhelming majority of adult Hawaiians, signed anti-annexation petitions in one of the first examples of protest against the overthrow of Queen Liliʻuokalaniʻs government.[143] Nearly 100 years later, in 1993, 17,000 Hawaiians marched to demand access and control over Hawaiian trust lands and as part of the modern Hawaiian sovereignty movement.[144] Hawaiian trust land ownership and use is still widely contested as a consequence of annexation. According to scholar Winona LaDuke, as of 2015, 95% of Hawaiʻiʻs land was owned or controlled by just 82 landholders, including over 50% by federal and state governments, as well as the established sugar and pineapple companies.[144] The Thirty Meter Telescope is planned to be built on Hawaiian trust land, but has faced resistance as the project interferes with Kanaka indigeneity.[clarify][145]
  If you think a referendum from 1959 fairly represents the interests of the native population then what else is there to say.
  
  Person is in bad faith and worse, smug. Hhit em with a PPB.
  
  If you think a referendum from 1959 fairly represents the interests of the native population then what else is there to say.
  that it does, and you have failed to prove otherwise despite quoting a block f text you clearly don’t understand— OR are intentionally misrepresenting, hoping everyone else here is too stupid to realize you’re trying to pull a fast one on them.
  Fortunately, I’m not the idiot you think I am.
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_the_Hawaiian_Kingdom
  note the dates. it was forcibly annexed by a coup government. the later vote to join as a state took place well afterwards
  
  note the dates. it was forcibly annexed by a coup government
  the facts don’t support your assertions. even if they did, it’s irrelevant because….
  the later vote to join as a state took place well afterwards
  just as I said and the facts I gave support. since 94% of people voted to become a state, no rational person would call it an “occupation”.
  
  lmao you illiterate jackass. a sham vote to join a nation that overthrew your actual government by a bunch of people who moved there specifically to move the needle on that exact vote means nothing. christ, you liberals really love white nationalism as much as the flag fuckers do
  
  says the troll
  
  trolling is when you know more about history than your average liberal white supremacist
  
  says the troll
True, just clarifying the best case scenario. Did the Hawaiian people recently vote to leave the union that I am unaware of?
- When did they vote to join? They fought pretty hard to keep their rightfully elected government.
  
  in 1959, with a 93%+ majority:
  Hawaii—a U.S. territory since 1898—became the 50th state in August, 1959, following a referendum in Hawaii in which more than 93% of the voters approved the proposition that the territory should be admitted as a state.
  There were many Hawaiian petitions for statehood during the first half of the 20th century. The voters wished to participate directly in electing their own governor and to have a full voice in national debates and elections that affected their lives. The voters also felt that statehood was warranted because they had demonstrated their loyalty—no matter what their ethnic background—to the U.S. to the fullest extent during World War II.
  (source)
  On June 27, 1959, a referendum asked residents of Hawaiʻi to vote on the statehood bill; 94.3% voted in favor of statehood and 5.7% opposed it. The referendum asked voters to choose between accepting the Act and remaining a U.S. territory. The United Nations' Special Committee on Decolonization later removed Hawaiʻi from its list of non-self-governing territories.
  (source)
  
  I think it's more than a little dishonest to say that the native Hawaiians voted for this. At the time of this referendum, they composed about 15% of the population and their culture and identity had been suppressed for generations.
  The US government even admitted in 1993 that the native people never agreed to this.
  
  I think it’s more than a little dishonest to say that the native Hawaiians voted for this.
  almost as dishonest as claiming is said something I didn’t and then moving the goalposts to win an argument…
  At the time of this referendum, they composed about 15% of the population and their culture and identity had been suppressed for generations.
  irrelevant. sad, but irrelevant. thy got to vote, just like anyone else, and, even by your numbers, 2/3 of THAT population voted for statehood.
  The US government even admitted in 1993 that the native people never agreed to this.
  that’s not what that says, but it’s nice to know how easy it is for you to lie to try to get ahead in an argument. “winning” online debates must be very important for you.
  
  Swarming lands with your settlers and then claiming b-but they muh voted for it, is peak lib cracker imperialism. The french did the same in New Caledonia.
  
  Don't forget about saying the settlers have a legitimate say on what happens to Hawaii.
  
  Swarming lands with your settlers and then claiming b-but they muh voted for it, is peak lib cracker imperialism. The french did the same in New Caledonia.
  so, when you can’t argue with facts, you rest to redefining words, personal insults, and racist slurs.
  classy
  
  I didn’t argue with you, I made clear statements about your nature and your character. Its up to you to change that and if you refuse, well thats just proves me right in the end.
  
  I didn’t argue with you
  yeah, that’s why I said “when you can’t argue…”
  I made clear statements about your nature and your character
  you had a tantrum and hurtled racist slurs and insults
  well thats just proves me right in the end.
  you’e right because you have racist tantrums and can’t make rational, fact-based arguments? interesting take...
  
  racist slurs
  
  93% of natives or all inhabitants?
  
  as you can clearly see,
  On June 27, 1959, a referendum asked residents of Hawaiʻi to vote on the statehood bill; 94.3% voted in favor of statehood and 5.7% opposed it.
  
  Not al residents are natives, right? So what % of natives voted in favor?
  
  so, now you’re moving the goalposts because you didn’t like the answer...
  
  Check title of this post. Do you see the word "native" there? In the title of this post that we're commenting in? "Native"? You see it?
  
  I see the comment I replied to, the context and words used, and how it was changed to suit an argument once the facts became inconvenient.
  
  perhaps you should pay closer attention to the conversation before you jump in unprepared.
  
  The discussion is about US OCCUPYING Hawaii. Imagine thinking that a referendum of the occupiers on whether they want to keep occupying is a valid way to decide whether people who have bee OCCUPIED agree with the occupation. It's like if I moved into your house and put a gun to your head, and then ran a referendum to see if I should stay there.
  The fact that you don't understand how idiotic your argument is shows what an utter imbecile you are.
  
  The discussion is about US OCCUPYING Hawaii
  WRONG. you changed the subject to a straw man argument when you couldn’t argue the facts in good faith. Right here:
  
  going by your comment history, logical fallacies are something you’re an expert at wielding and often get comments removed and your account banned for it (and or your habit of throwing insult-ridden tantrums when your bad-faith tactics fail)
  
  The fact that you don’t understand how idiotic your argument is shows what an utter imbecile you are.
  oh, look, more childish name-calling because you can’t argue in good faith based on the facts, and I’m some idiot who will fall fr your little tricks.

Probably not with the US around. It's never let any other country live in quiet peace and prosperity. It's always worth being optimistic, though.

We don't even let our own people live in quiet peace and prosperity. 😩
- One day!

They did before they were conquered. Why is that so hard to imagine now?

Hawaii was annexed in 1898. So, why dredge up anger at the conquest over 100 years later?
- First of all, that's not at all a reasonable reply to my comment. Second, how the hell do you have the gall to openly post this fascist garbage for all the world to see?
  
  they voted to become a state in 1959, with a 93%+ majority. how is that “fascist” just because you disagree with it?
  Hawaii—a U.S. territory since 1898—became the 50th state in August, 1959, following a referendum in Hawaii in which more than 93% of the voters approved the proposition that the territory should be admitted as a state.
  There were many Hawaiian petitions for statehood during the first half of the 20th century. The voters wished to participate directly in electing their own governor and to have a full voice in national debates and elections that affected their lives. The voters also felt that statehood was warranted because they had demonstrated their loyalty—no matter what their ethnic background—to the U.S. to the fullest extent during World War II.
  (source)
  On June 27, 1959, a referendum asked residents of Hawaiʻi to vote on the statehood bill; 94.3% voted in favor of statehood and 5.7% opposed it. The referendum asked voters to choose between accepting the Act and remaining a U.S. territory. The United Nations' Special Committee on Decolonization later removed Hawaiʻi from its list of non-self-governing territories.
  (source)
  
  Because you are saying it was 100 years ago, so your crimes no longer matter. The holocaust is coming up on 100 years ago now as well. I'm guessing that all the peoples murdered by the Nazis should just get over it and start loving the fascists now as well?
  As for your garbage referendum, see my reply to your other post with this garbage.
  
  Because you are saying it was 100 years ago, so your crimes no longer matter.
  YOU are saying that, not me. keep your words out of my mouth.
  The holocaust...
  
  As for your garbage referendum
  “I don’t like it, so I’m going to call it names!”
  grow up
  
  I confused you with the other fascist above, whose post I was replying to.
  Hawaii was annexed in 1898. So, why dredge up anger at the conquest over 100 years later?
  You're just here sealioning on an attempt to justify ethnic cleansing. The Holocaust comparison is NOT a false equivalence by the way. Hitler was inspired by the US.
  
  Really tempted to give this individual the PPBs...
  
  They're running multiple accounts pushing the same reactionary garbage, with the same little debate fallacy pictures, and even the same obnoxious "most people learn this when they're 5" bit.
  
  Ah, mods need to do some clearing out then
  
  I already blocked him. I'm native and I'm somewhat used to hearing this nonsense. But it still doesn't do good things for me, and he has nothing useful to say anyway. It's all debate perversion with a hard on for colonialism. Anyone with half a brain should be able to see that it's just a lame attempt to justify the subjugation of Hawaii.
  
  Any situation that began with land being stolen from native people via coup and gun-point means anything thereafter is a colonial and imperialist action that creates easily understandable echos of inequality and suffering. For instance lots of Native populations being unable to afford their land, or having to exist as permanent renters, and then also having to suffer ecological consequences such as guinea grass (imported by colonial cattle ranchers into Hawaii that now dries out and burns easily yet has not been removed) causing wild fires that burn entire communities (not to forget the blackrock owned electric company having shitty ill maintained equipment around such communities).
  
  You’re just here sealioning on an attempt to justify ethnic cleansing. The Holocaust comparison is NOT a false equivalence by the way. Hitler was inspired by the US.
  This article doesn’t even mention Hawaii, colonialism, or anything related to it. It speaks of Hitler’s inspiration drawn from slavery and ideas of race superiority towards black people. Not only did you obviously just google “Hitler US inspiration” to cherry-pick something about Hitler, you clearly neither read it or have any understanding of the material.
  so, yeah, it’s a false equivalence AND now you're

Judging by their history, probably not. Just like people's everywhere, Hawaiians have a very violent history full of warfare!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nu%CA%BBuanu

"Caught between the Hawaiian Army and a 1000-foot drop, over 700 Oʻahu warriors either jumped or were pushed over the edge of the Pali (cliff). In 1898 construction workers working on the Pali road discovered 800 skulls which were believed to be the remains of the warriors that fell to their deaths from the cliff above."

lol, no, this is not actually the land of endless aloha even among the natives