I agree with you to some extent, but I have a question for you,
would you rather fight a war on Oahu or in Taiwan. Japan, or Korea?

War is a course of action of a last resort that should be avoided at all costs in favor of economic growth and stability.

A de-occupied Hawaiian nation state like the Hawaiian Kingdom before it will continue to be a neutral nation aligned with no country.

Friends to all, enemies to none.   

Under what authority? Those are your words.

Please peruse the works of Dr. Willy Kauai for a more detailed explanation of Citizenship of Hawaii.

https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/dce59b0b-a644-4b1b-957e-dafb2669755d/content

War is a course of action of a last resort that should be avoided at all costs in favor of economic growth and stability.

A de-occupied Hawaiian nation state like the Hawaiian Kingdom before it will continue to be a neutral nation aligned with no country.

Friends to all, enemies to none.   

Not meant to be an insult, but you are a piss poor historian.
The only decent place to stop in the middle of the pacific?
Your kingdom would be toast and subjects of the CCP empire.
Perhaps you prefer Han Chinese rule. We almost have that now.
The only reason we have guns is because of American "empire"
Constitution.
Your local Chinese and Japanese legislators would disarm you
in a second if they could.
Y'all think about that.
 

Perhaps you prefer Han Chinese rule. We almost have that now.

Been obvious for a long time from his stroking and fluffing the ChiComs that he wants them here.

Not meant to be an insult, but you are a piss poor historian.
The only decent place to stop in the middle of the pacific?
Your kingdom would be toast and subjects of the CCP empire.

That is pure conjecture on your part.

China in the 21st century has shown no intention to invade any of its neighboring countries.

The only reason we have guns is because of American "empire"
Constitution.

Your Hawaiian history is lacking as gun ownership was allowed during the Hawaiian Kingdom and there is no reason to believe otherwise in a restored Hawaiian nation state.

Your local Chinese and Japanese legislators would disarm you in a second if they could.

If they are Hawaiian nationals, you may have a point, if they are elected to government.

However, if you are referring to the current local government in Hawaii, they are inconsequential as they would not be legally a part of a restored Hawaiian nation state.

Been obvious for a long time from his stroking and fluffing the ChiComs that he wants them here.

At least nations that have good economic relations with China don't have to worry about having their pipelines blown up as does the vassals states of the US empire.   

Please peruse the works of Dr. Willy Kauai for a more detailed explanation of Citizenship of Hawaii.

https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/dce59b0b-a644-4b1b-957e-dafb2669755d/content

That 325 page academic paper is not one of authority either. There's nothing that affirms any type of citizenship.

At least nations that have good economic relations with China don't have to worry about having their pipelines blown up as does the vassals states of the US empire.   

I don’t know. Indiscriminately murdering millions of people with a weaponized virus kinda screwed everyone. Way more of a dick move.

Speaking of reparations…

Wow the Hawaiian kingdom “allowed” firearms? You’re good with that? Sounds like gun ownership was not believed to be a right. Kinda sounds exactly like the Hawaii government right now.

Also no reason to believe that a restored Hawaiian kingdom would change gun ownership here? Has OHA ever stepped up and supported gun rights for the native Hawaiian community? Has any mainstream popular Hawaiian organization ever supported gun rights? I remember kalehua krug saying “it’s time to leave the US” (paraphrasing) after the Bruen decision dropped. Just another “Hawaiian community leader” spitting on gun rights and you still think there’s “no reason” to believe otherwise.

This is why Hawaiians like myself never take the sovereignty types serious. You guys no can see the forest for the trees. So enamored with a title change that you cannot see the major issues that would come with your dream.

Wow the Hawaiian kingdom “allowed” firearms? You’re good with that? Sounds like gun ownership was not believed to be a right. Kinda sounds exactly like the Hawaii government right now.

Also no reason to believe that a restored Hawaiian kingdom would change gun ownership here? Has OHA ever stepped up and supported gun rights for the native Hawaiian community? Has any mainstream popular Hawaiian organization ever supported gun rights? I remember kalehua krug saying “it’s time to leave the US” (paraphrasing) after the Bruen decision dropped. Just another “Hawaiian community leader” spitting on gun rights and you still think there’s “no reason” to believe otherwise.

This is why Hawaiians like myself never take the sovereignty types serious. You guys no can see the forest for the trees. So enamored with a title change that you cannot see the major issues that would come with your dream.

so you're saying, "Friends to all, enemies to none." is a dream?
but this guy on a forum said so...

One day in the future, China or some other major world power will invade Hawaii. 

Rather than go full conventional warfare mode and put our own citizens' lives at risk, the US will just tell the invaders, "Not our problem.  Hawaii was never legally annexed.  Sorry to break it to them, but they're on their own -- just as they've wanted since the early 1900s. We'll surrender the islands in exchange for 1,000 cases of fresh pineapple and access to remove our military members and equipment.  No muss, no fuss, no cruise missile strikes."

 

but what about the ICBMs in their silos?
the US imperialist empire and their vassals would never give them up...

One day in the future, China or some other major world power will invade Hawaii. 

Rather than go full conventional warfare mode and put our own citizens' lives at risk, the US will just tell the invaders, "Not our problem.  Hawaii was never legally annexed.  Sorry to break it to them, but they're on their own -- just as they've wanted since the early 1900s. We'll surrender the islands in exchange for 1,000 cases of fresh pineapple and access to remove our military members and equipment.  No muss, no fuss, no cruise missile strikes."

 

One day in the future, China or some other major world power will invade Hawaii. 

Rather than go full conventional warfare mode and put our own citizens' lives at risk, the US will just tell the invaders, "Not our problem.  Hawaii was never legally annexed.  Sorry to break it to them, but they're on their own -- just as they've wanted since the early 1900s. We'll surrender the islands in exchange for 1,000 cases of fresh pineapple and access to remove our military members and equipment.  No muss, no fuss, no cruise missile strikes."

 

We could do worse than India, plus they might sell us some 7.62x39 to keep the AKMs running after our AR supply chain dries up.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/indo-russian-joint-venture-begins-manufacturing-ak-203-assault-rifles-in-up/article66386155.ece

Please peruse the works of Dr. Willy Kauai for a more detailed explanation of Citizenship of Hawaii.

https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/dce59b0b-a644-4b1b-957e-dafb2669755d/content

I read through the first 40+ pages, skimmed through the middle, and read the last few.

I think the bulk of the doctoral dissertation was nothing more than a history lesson sprinkled throughout with "ILLEGAL ANNEXATION!"

The key takeaway for me was this:  before the US annexation., everyone who was a subject to the monarchy was labeled a citizen of Hawaii.  Once the monarchy was dissolved and replaced with a constitutional framework, the concept of citizenship became extremely ambiguous and confusing. 

He blames the change in citizenship definition on the racial or ethnic paradigm imported from the US, since the census bureau uses ethnicity and race for many purposes including government representation.

While that might be where the structure originated, the racial and ethnic components were a natural result of the kingdom no longer treating everyone as subjects.  Chicken vs. egg, The Matrix's Oracle ("Would you have broken the vase anyway if i didn't say don't worry about it?").  The US was the cause of the monarchy's dissolution, but was it really the primary cause of how Hawaiians define themselves racially?  In the absence of historical or monarchy rules, maybe the natural progression is to use race and ethnicity as a substitute, especially with more people of foreign nationality moving here.

Regardless, all he did was go into the historical and anecdotal descriptions of why and how calling oneself "Hawaiian" has changed, and that it remains ambiguous, confusing and not going to be resolved anytime soon.

It's impossible to demand Hawaiian Sovereignty when you can't even get a consensus on the definition of what it means to be "Hawaiian."  Not in 1898, not in 1954, and not in 1990 -- but in 2023.  Native Americans had a more static structure of citizenship via tribal membership.  race and ethnicity are NOT proper attributes to determine citizenship because under the monarchy, neither of those were factors -- only that you were under the jurisdiction of the Kingdom.

That 325 page academic paper is not one of authority either. There's nothing that affirms any type of citizenship.

That paper makes logical legal sense and serves as a valid legal blueprint for citizenship in a restored Hawaiian nation state after de-occupation.

Once de-occupation is complete and the government reestablished, naturalization and immigration laws can then be enacted, thereafter, for local residents of the former US empire if interested in acquiring citizenship.

It's impossible to demand Hawaiian Sovereignty when you can't even get a consensus on the definition of what it means to be "Hawaiian."  Not in 1898, not in 1954, and not in 1990 -- but in 2023.  Native Americans had a more static structure of citizenship via tribal membership.  race and ethnicity are NOT proper attributes to determine citizenship because under the monarchy, neither of those were factors -- only that you were under the jurisdiction of the Kingdom.

First of all, Hawaiian nationals are not demanding sovereignty since the Hawaiian nation state still exists and is being illegally occupied.

Second, I don't understand the confusion you have with the concept of Hawaiian.  Prior to the establishment of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Hawaiians referred to the aboriginal population of the Big Island of Hawaii.  After the legal international recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Hawaiians became a term used for nationality.  After the illegal occupation of Hawaii, the term Hawaiian somehow became a term referring to an ethnicity.

For myself, I am an aboriginal ethnic Mauian from Maui and a Hawaiian national.

I don’t know. Indiscriminately murdering millions of people with a weaponized virus kinda screwed everyone. Way more of a dick move.

As Macsak would say, show me the proof China deliberately unleashed a virus to devastate the World.

One day in the future, China or some other major world power will invade Hawaii. 

Rather than go full conventional warfare mode and put our own citizens' lives at risk, the US will just tell the invaders, "Not our problem.  Hawaii was never legally annexed.  Sorry to break it to them, but they're on their own -- just as they've wanted since the early 1900s. We'll surrender the islands in exchange for 1,000 cases of fresh pineapple and access to remove our military members and equipment.  No muss, no fuss, no cruise missile strikes."

Seriously, I hope the US empire de-occupies Hawaii now and let's see who laughs last.

Seriously, I hope the US empire de-occupies Hawaii now and let's see who laughs last.

The only ones who will be laughing will be members of the CCP.
Do you think that Russia or China will pass up the opportunity to own and occupy Pearl Harbor
Hickam or the other assets in Hawaii? The people of Hawaii will become a problem minority and
will need to be sent to re-education camps and slave labor factories.
Look at what happened to the Uyghurs. Look at what also happened in Tibet.

Wow the Hawaiian kingdom “allowed” firearms? You’re good with that? Sounds like gun ownership was not believed to be a right. Kinda sounds exactly like the Hawaii government right now.

Gun rights at least during the American Republic were made law by way of the American Bill of Rights.  Although the Hawaiian Kingdom did not have a Bill of Rights ensuring the right to bear arms, they did not have any laws preventing gun ownership either.

In a restored Hawaiian nation state, the task then for all Hawaiian nationals would naturally be to enact legislation that ensures gun ownership, especially knowing that Hawaii is a small neutral island nation and will need citizen soldiers ready to serve in the defense of their nation against invasion, as did the original American thirteen colonies of Great Britain.

Also no reason to believe that a restored Hawaiian kingdom would change gun ownership here? Has OHA ever stepped up and supported gun rights for the native Hawaiian community? Has any mainstream popular Hawaiian organization ever supported gun rights? I remember kalehua krug saying “it’s time to leave the US” (paraphrasing) after the Bruen decision dropped. Just another “Hawaiian community leader” spitting on gun rights and you still think there’s “no reason” to believe otherwise.

OHA is nothing but the wannabe US imperial Hawaiian watchdog that is only looking to keep Hawaiians under continued illegal occupation.  Just because some Hawaiian organizations or Hawaiian community sell-outs don't openly support American gun rights does not mean all Hawaiian are of like mind.  You support gun rights don't you?  Obviously, I do.

This is why Hawaiians like myself never take the sovereignty types serious. You guys no can see the forest for the trees. So enamored with a title change that you cannot see the major issues that would come with your dream.

First of all, the fact that you do not recognize that Hawaii never lost its sovereignty; hence, why the correct term used to describe Hawaii's legal status is that of an illegal occupation shows that it is you who can't see the forest and the tress and only believe the realties the US empire has allowed you to believe to happen if and when the de-occupation of Hawaii occurs.

Fellow Hawaiian national, I invite you to start a new thread where you and I can discuss/debate this issue on all levels.