Hawaii - America’s Tibet?

Well I was thinking of the mass migrations of the Germanic peoples from the second to the sixth centuries; or of the Islamic tribes' movement across North Africa and into Iberia and Sicily, (and of course east) 7th to 9th c.  That sort of "monumental" force; not merely armies, but whole populations.

Also, as a couple of North Americans, our past includes a long mass migration, mostly from Europe, where the sheer number of human beings who came here constituted a force that would not be stopped because it could not be.  Most probably the same applies to Tibet where there was Chinese immigration and to Kazakhstan where there was Russian immigration, and Brazil and Argentina where the populations are largely European whether Portuguese, Spanish, Italian or German in origin.

Using the 'reductio' that Decebal mentioned, all are (or were) "illegitimate" occupiers.  But due to historical forces that could never have been managed, that point is moot.  The point is that those populations are there; their very existance there constitutes legitimacy since there is nowhere else they can go.  I don't see how you CAN draw a line. 

The obvious difference is who won, that's the only real difference when it comes to the morality of an action, whether the supporters or opponents of that action had more firepower and/or better propaganda.

I think the answer is that we actually don't.  The legality of an action is determined by history based on whether it was successful or not, and the only reason politicians bother with it at present is for propaganda purposes.

There is a greatness in human nature that is often overwhelmed by a mindless desire for power and wealth on the part of some.

I wouldn't say some, I would say most. 

And how is it mindless?  I wouldn't take offence if you said "heartless" but calling it mindless and therefore irrational is incorrect.  It's the most rational thing an actor can do, maximize it's own welfare.

I'd disagree with you about most people seeking power and wealth. I think we tend to notice those who do more that's all. Our societies wouldn't operate if there wasn't a fair number of people who truly cared about the welfare of others.

I don't disagree with you here.  I'm speaking about foreign policy though.  The reason that one can safely focus on something other than their personal welfare is because their personal welfare is maintained by their bond with the collective, in our cases our respective countires.  In the anarchic world environment that is impossible, the first priority of any individual or group of individuals, safety is only guaranteed by their ability to enforce it.  Tangible and intangible forms of power are the only ways in which one can ensure security. 

The endless quest for power by states that I think is the most rational course of action for any country is based off of the aforementioned devotion to the group and collective good.  As Machiavelli said "the greatest good one can do is a good for one's country", I will never personally benefit from the successes of my country in far off corner's of the globe in any way that would make my own assistance in those endeavors profitable, yet in so doing I would hope that all those involved would reap more benefit for the entire country as a whole than what it cost them to secure it.  In such a way, the country itself grows stronger and thus more safe in this dangerous, adversarial planet.

 as one of the guys here said , the whole movement of europeans into the north and south america is illegal and its occupation just like what is going on with inner mongolia, eastern turkistan and tibet with china , also without forgotten the illegal movement of russians to the whole north asia.

 why do all the chinese here trying to compare and relate everything with america when anyone talks about them ! and by the way "flyingzone" are you chinese canadian ? lol

Even then Duke, Canada and the United States cooperate because it benefits both of us, not out of the good of our hearts.  If cooperation didn't work we wouldn't do it.  I'm not arguing that conflict is the only driving force between nations, I'm arguing that self-interest is.  Most countries do, and should follow their self-interest.

I think Machiavelli's viewpoint was formed by the state of Italy at the time, but it did not make it inaccurate, it made it highly accurate.  Countries like the United States and Canada have been able to ignore power politics due to our protection by two vast oceans.  Florence could not and that made their worldview all the more pure, and accurate by necessity.  Dreams and ideals had to be drowned out by the realities of power and a world of enemies and shifting alliances in the pursuit of national interest.

I would prefer Machiavelli to Nash.  Machiavelli had political experience, Nash never did.  Nash dealt with mathematical formulas and theories, Machiavelli dealt with flesh and blood individuals and nations.  Did Nash even apply his game theory to world politics and come to your conclusion that world peace is possible or did you just extrapolate his work to reach that conclusion yourself?  You also mention how the needs of all can be achieved without advantage being taken of others.  Sure, this is theoretically possible, but in the real world could you possible solve all people's desires.  Often the objective interests of two or more groups are diametrically opposed.  It is in the interests of the United States to have oil be cheap on the world market, it is in the interest of OPEC to have it be expensive.  Sure an equilibrium will be met, but each side has a great incentive to cheat or move that equilibrium to their favor, enough to ensure tension and conflict for a long time.  You talk much of this theory, tell me how on this Earth full of so many different people, cultures, and interests you would implement it.

I can see that the questions which I have asked were taken as being rhetorical and not literal. I really was asking when does an occupation become legitimate.

Some of you have interpreted my questions as saying that the occupation of the Americas by Europeans was somehow "illegal". Under whose law, that is unclear. Don't get me wrong, I don't approve of most of the actions taken by conquistadores, or other early colonists. But the great majority of Europeans who migrated to the New World did so in search of a better life. They had the right to the pursuit of happiness, as did the natives. The abuses of power and extermination of the natives may have been illegal or immoral. But do they make the occupation itself illegal? I don't know, what do you guys think?

I think that this is a very gray area. The decision of whether an occupation is legitimate or not seems to depend on political factors, and is different for different people. Indeed, I believe that this is certainly one area in which we can see propaganda in action. The Chinese occupation of Tibet is seen as illegal because China is a communist state and in a cold war and post cold war environment, it is the target of Western propaganda. The American occupation of Hawaii is seldom talked about because there simply isn't a comparable propaganda bloc which could latch on to it, or the interest to do it in the first place.

There are certain considerations that enter the propaganda wheh dealing with occupated territories. Please note that just because it's propaganda, that doesn't mean it's true. Some common themes in such propaganda include:
1. A majority of the invading people now live in that area.
2. Life is better now for everyone in that area, invaders and natives included
3. The natives gave up their land willingly (usually under the form of treaties)

Conversely, the natives, and often the intellectual community have their own propaganda. Their themes include:
1. The natives had a long history, often with a centralized government in the area
2. Life may be better now, but natives have had to endure hardship in the past, and their life may have been even better had the occupation never occured.
3. The natives were coerced into signing treaties, or the land was forcibly taken.
4. The natives suffered cultural genocide or assimilation.

It comes down to whose propaganda one is most inclined to believe in, and whose rights one is most apt to support (the natives or the invaders). Public perception and people's definitions of the validity of an occuption are shaped by propaganda. In the case of Tibet, we have Chinese propaganda which is quite effective within China, versus the propaganda of the Tibetan diaspora, some of the western intellectual community and some of the western politicians. Hence, in China the occupation is mostly seen as legitimate, and in the West mostly as illegitimate. In the case of Hawaii, we have American propaganda on the one hand, and the feeble propaganda of a few isolated intellectuals and the restricted Hawaiian community. Therefore, the American propaganda will have by far the largest audience, and the occupation of Hawaii not only is seen as legitimate, but it's not even a subject of conversation for most people.

As Pikeshot has pointed out, at some point the issue of the legitimacy becomes a moot point. Before that though, I wanted to ask your opinions on the legitimacy of the occupations. That was the initial purpose of my questions, but I wasn't clear. In other words, which propaganda arguments that I've iterated above are the most valid and why?

Military might is overrated. It does'nt do you any good if you don't know what you're fighting for or against.