Comments by "Hyok Kim" (@hyokkim7726) on "Genocide in China is Worse Than You Think" video.
-
4
-
@GUNNER67akaKelt ''Well, most countries could give land back to the original owners, for that matter.''
Indeed.
''Somewhere at some point in time, the people living there now killed the people who were there first.''
Yes, for example, in Korea, today's Koreans are not the full blooded descendants of the natives in the Korean Peninsula.
Basically, the invaders (in fact, two different group of invaders, one Turkic, the other Scythians), invaded the Korean Peninsula, thousands of years ago. The Turkic invaders invaded the western portion, the Scythians, the east.
The Scythians drove out the ruling class of the east, to Japan. Then they became the new ruling class of the east. The former ruling class either killed, enslaved, or driven out, now conquered a portion of Japan, and became the new ruling class of the natives there, after killing the original ruling class of the natives.
''Sad fact of history.''
c'est la vie
3
-
Human history. All those people defending Ukraine against Russia, totally silent on the natives of Siberia, and the Russian Far East; how they had been robbed, treated as 2nd class citizen on their native lands.
What about Okinawa? What about Hokkaido? What about Jeju island?
.c'est la vie. What can you do?
Btw. U.S. was right to rob the natives and take their lands; they were going to lose them anyway to some other powers hostile to U.S. U.S. could have faced existential threat, not from the natives, but from those hostile powers.
If one is not strong enough to defend what one claims, one does not have the right to have it.
If one cannot use the resources of the land one claims, but others can use those resources far more effectively and/or efficiently, then those who can, taking them could bring more prosperity to the human race.
However, there is a hope for the Ugyers. I don't think PRC will exist by 2050. Big change will be coming. Whatever that is, Ugyers, and other minorities within PRC will have very little to lose, but to gain.
PRC's GDP is largely made up from ghost cities, and associated activities. Genuine superpowers do not build the foundation of their prosperity based on real estate speculation.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GUNNER67akaKelt Dude, I was speaking in jest, calm down.
Still, U.S. could take Panama and give it back to Columbia, no? After all, U.S. had no problem taking Panam from Columbia, to begin with.
U.S. does own Hawaii, and the lands robbed from the natives, no? So U.S. could grant independence to Hawaii, and give all the land back to the natives, no?
1
-
@GUNNER67akaKelt Why was it ok back then, but not ok now?
Btw. I would have supported robbing the natives of the land, and annexing Hawaii, and taking Panama from Columbia; they were necessary for vital U.S. national interest.
If one is not strong enough to defend what one claims, and cannot get anyone strong enough to defend for one, one does not have the right to have it.
If one can make the better use of the land claimed by others, for the betterment of mankind, one has the moral right to take the land from the one claiming it.
If it is in the genuine (not pretended, like Vietnam, WW1, Spanish-American War, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine), national interest of U.S. then U.S. should violate the rights of any country out there.
It's not just Xinjiang, but what about Okinawa, Hokkaido? Do you know how they became a part of Japan, not so long ago?
or what about Jeju island, how it had become a part of Korea?
They just took them by force, simple as that, and it wasn't even in their national interest to do so.
China, not just PRC has far better reason to take Xinjiang than the Japanese and Korean did regarding, Okinawa, Hokkaido, and Jeju. Why was it ok for Japan and Korea to do in Okinawa, Hokkaido, and Jeju, but it's not ok for PRC to do the same?
By the same token, some other countries in the future might take areas claimed by PRC today, for a good reason. If the nation is strong enough, and has good enough reason, then that nation will have the right to take.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@faaldeyra
''Not to mention there were and still are a considerable amount of people against making Hawaii a state'' - faaldeyra
''Hawaii became a state in 1959 toward the tail end of WWII, relatively shortly after Pearl Harbor. This was done pretty much alongside Alaska becoming a state.'' - faaldeyra
So why had you said there are still a considerable amount of people against making Hawaii a state?
''''Stop talking about my home if you don't know its history. (Notice I'm playing your game now)'' - faaldeyra
''Well, do you?'' - Hyok Kim
''7) Yes, I do, considering you had to ask if Hawaii was a state makes me wonder. Do YOU?'' - faaldeyra
You claimed that there are a still considerable amount of people against making Hawaii a state.
''Not to mention there were and still are a considerable amount of people against making Hawaii a state'' - faaldeyra
Why are you lying?
''2) You cannot be born a hypocrite. By your logic, since everyone's ancestors participated in slavery & conquer culture, nobody can have an opinion.''
Where had I said, ''You can be a born hypocrite.''
Where had I said, ''Nobody can have an opinion since everyone's ancestors participated in slavery & conquer culture.''?
Why are you lying?
''3) Yes, it's ignorant based on my answer to the previous question.'' - faaldeyra
''Not to mention there were and still are a considerable amount of people against making Hawaii a state'' - faaldeyra
''and it was the best possible outcome considering the fact that there was an entire world war.'' - faaldeyra
There was no world war during the annexation of Hawaii.
''4) I don't care what Russia says. I have a problem with your line of thinking.'' - faaldeyra
What kind of problem? Too much honesty, and logical consistency for you?
''It was a little less than half of Native Hawaiians that protested the annexation, with the rest being in favor of it and also wanting it to become a state.'' - faaldeyra
''The overthrow of Lili'uokalani and imposition of the Republic of Hawaii was contrary to the will of the native Hawaiians. In fact, there had been a series of rebellions by Native Hawaiians since the imposition of the Bayonet Constitution in 1887. On January 5, 1895, during the "Wilcox Rebellion," an armed revolt was suppressed by Republic of Hawaii forces. The leaders of the revolt were imprisoned along with Queen Lili'uokalani.
In March of 1897, William McKinley was inaugurated as President of the United States. McKinley was in favor of annexation, and the change in leadership was soon felt. On June 16, 1897, McKinley and three representatives of the government of the Republic of Hawaii – Lorrin Thurston, Francis Hatch, and William Kinney – signed a treaty of annexation. President McKinley then submitted the treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification.
Queen Liliuokalani and her fellow citizens successfully protested the annexation by petitioning Congress. Two Hawaiian groups, Hui Aloha 'Aina and Hui Kulai'aina, one group for men and one for women, organized a mass petition drive. They hoped that if the U.S. government realized that the majority of native Hawaiian citizens opposed annexation, the move to annex Hawaii would be stopped.''
''7) Yes, I do, considering you had to ask if Hawaii was a state makes me wonder. Do YOU?'' - faaldeyra
Why are you making up stories?
1
-
@faaldeyra
''Not to mention there were and still are a considerable amount of people against making Hawaii a state'' - faaldeyra
''Hawaii became a state in 1959 toward the tail end of WWII, relatively shortly after Pearl Harbor. This was done pretty much alongside Alaska becoming a state.'' - faaldeyra
WW2 ended in 1945; Pear Harbor happened in 1941.
''and it was the best possible outcome considering the fact that there was an entire world war.'' - faaldeyra
There was no world war during the annexation of Hawaii.
''It was a little less than half of Native Hawaiians that protested the annexation, with the rest being in favor of it and also wanting it to become a state.'' - faaldeyra
''The overthrow of Lili'uokalani and imposition of the Republic of Hawaii was contrary to the will of the native Hawaiians. In fact, there had been a series of rebellions by Native Hawaiians since the imposition of the Bayonet Constitution in 1887. On January 5, 1895, during the "Wilcox Rebellion," an armed revolt was suppressed by Republic of Hawaii forces. The leaders of the revolt were imprisoned along with Queen Lili'uokalani.
In March of 1897, William McKinley was inaugurated as President of the United States. McKinley was in favor of annexation, and the change in leadership was soon felt. On June 16, 1897, McKinley and three representatives of the government of the Republic of Hawaii – Lorrin Thurston, Francis Hatch, and William Kinney – signed a treaty of annexation. President McKinley then submitted the treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification.
Queen Liliuokalani and her fellow citizens successfully protested the annexation by petitioning Congress. Two Hawaiian groups, Hui Aloha 'Aina and Hui Kulai'aina, one group for men and one for women, organized a mass petition drive. They hoped that if the U.S. government realized that the majority of native Hawaiian citizens opposed annexation, the move to annex Hawaii would be stopped.''
1
-
1