> *** It goes like this A: Hawaii WANTED to be a
part of the US. That is how
> it did. It was not because the USA claimed Hawaii to have been an integral
> part of the US, and so it were to have remained.
>
> That is a huge difference.
> it did. It was not because the USA claimed Hawaii to have been an integral
> part of the US, and so it were to have remained.
>
> That is a huge difference.
O' really! Please look at this site, C'da:
http://www2.thingstodo.com/states/HI/history.htm
"Bills for statehood were introduced to Congress as
early as 1919, but many feared there would be no support from the islands during
wartime. This fear came to
an end as thousands fought from Hawaii in World War II (1939-1945) and the
Korean War (1950-1953). Hawaii
became the 50th state on Aug. 21, 1959.
Since statehood, Hawaii�s population has doubled. Sugar refining and pineapple production
remain important but have declined.
Tourism now leads Hawaii�s industries, estimated now around $4 billion
annually. A new jet-aircraft
terminal, completed in Honolulu in 1962, cut flying time from the United States
in half. Huge resorts and new
hotels were built throughout the islands of Hawaii, Kauai, Maui, and
Molokai.
This is the very
last para:
Some
Native Hawaiians want to regain land lost to the United States when they annexed
Hawaii. Several people believe the
United States should return Hawaii to its rightful owners, allowing the Native
Hawaiians to have their own government.
State leaders are striving to solve these conflicts.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chan Mahanta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Alpana Sarangapani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 9:55
PM
Subject: Re: [Assam] re: from the
Sentinel
> >> *** What is so unusual or bad about history repeating itself? If it is
> >good
> >> history, why not? Who would, for example, not wish to see the history of
> >> America, or even India -- in spite of all its problems, becoming
> >> independent repeat ?
> >
> >You would be upset again :), but I was referring to the part of the history
> >where Badan was involved - the traitor part. Moreover, I thought you just
> >said that you didn't care about what about 300 years ago.
>
>
> *** No, I said I would not be interested in SPECULATING about what BB MIGH
> HAVE said. It is about something that did NOT happen. History is about what
> DID happen, not speculating about what MIGHT have happened. Am I mistaken ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> *** Too cryptic for me A, this Hawaii reference. What does it mean?
> >
> >Simple, C'da. Like Hawaii has been with the US from 1959, less than Assam
> >and or Nagaland is with India. But do they claim that to be a reason for it
> >to be separated from the US?
>
> *** It goes like this A: Hawaii WANTED to be a part of the US. That is how
> it did. It was not because the USA claimed Hawaii to have been an integral
> part of the US, and so it were to have remained.
>
> That is a huge difference.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Not that one has to follow what they do, but it
> >looks like some are looking for their help/approval in these matters, thats
> >why. One of the intellectuals in this net even, was of the opinion that
> >Assam was never part of India before independence, etc., etc., and it is a
> >valid point for her to be independent.
>
> *** It sounds like a good argument. The only thing I would add to it is
> that it has to be the decision of the people of Assam. You may say, the
> REAL people of Assam :-).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Chan Mahanta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "Alpana B. Sarangapani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 1:32 PM
> >Subject: Re: [Assam] re: from the Sentinel
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >just wanted to clear one thing: have never done a survey or never talked
> >> >to any of our Naga classmates about what they thought about this
> >> >independence, so really don't know what the "real people" in Nagaland
> >> >want/need, so am not sure about Nagaland.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *** I won't hold your lack of surity against you Alpana. That is not at
> >all
> >> unusual. You ( or I for that matter) are hardly in a position to be able
> >to
> >> pass judgement on what the REAL ( as opposed to those who might pretend to
> >> be their proxies) Naga people want, never mind what your Naga classmates
> >> MIGHT have told you.
> >>
> >> Only the Indian Govt. and those Indians who like think they OWN the land
> >> which the Nagas call home would indulge in such pursuits - I mean attempt
> >> tell what the REAL Nagas want :-).
> >>
> >> But these folks could get to the bottom it very easily you know? Let the
> >> REAL Nagas speak -- thru the ballot box. I am sure you will agree it is
> >not
> >> that elusive an answer.
> >>
> >> What do you think :-) ?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >..probably it is because of the fear that it might repeat again?
> >>
> >> *** What is so unusual or bad about history repeating itself? If it is
> >good
> >> history, why not? Who would, for example, not wish to see the history of
> >> America, or even India -- in spite of all its problems, becoming
> >> independent repeat ?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >But being part of a country only recently is not an excuse, IMO. Like I
> >> >asked, >Hawaii was annexed only in 1959(?), so?
> >>
> >>
> >> *** Too cryptic for me A, this Hawaii reference. What does it mean?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> At 1:04 PM -0500 8/7/03, Alpana B. Sarangapani wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >I know, I myself feel like an old historian who won't let go of his/her
> >> >findings :)..probably it is because of the fear that it might repeat
> >> >again?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >But being part of a country only recently is not an excuse, IMO. Like I
> >> >asked, Hawaii was annexed only in 1959(?), so?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >From: Chan Mahanta >To: "Alpana B. Sarangapani" ,
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >CC:
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [Assam] re: from the Sentinel
> >> >>Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 12:50:37 -0500 > >At 12:35 PM -0500 8/7/03,
> >> >Alpana B. Sarangapani wrote: > > > > > >I agree, very informative.
> >> >Thank you. > > > > > > > >I just can't stop this from coming to my
> >> >mind: if Badan was alive today, > >was he going to say that he did all
> >> >this for the 'people of Guwahati' and > >not for the hope of himself
> >> >being the Chief Minister or even the > >'xorgodeu' of Assam? > > >***
> >> >To speculate on what might have been claimed by Badan Borphukan, three
> >> >>hundred years or so later, is a lost cause A :-). Who cares, what BB
> >> >might >have claimed? The facts, as knbown, speak for themselves, don't
> >> >they? > >
> >> >Protect your PC - <http://g.msn.com/8HMGENUS/2755??PS=>Click here for
> >> >McAfee.com VirusScan Online
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Assam mailing list
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
> >>
>
>
>
>
