• ikilledtheradiostar [comrade/them, love/loves]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    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.

    • adroit balloon@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      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.