Articles of American Sovereignty and Self Determination

[LeVentNoir]

We define a colony as "any people or territory separated from but subject to a ruling power." Ecuador does not fall into this category because they are ruled by themselves, not Rebel Army.

OOC: Speak to iamthey.

Again, we asked for you to show us any piece of history for the past one hundred fifty years where the Hawaiian Islands were not considered a part of the North American continent. You have failed to do so. You have made these accusations, the burden of proof lies with you, sir. Ecuador is not a colony, it is an autonomous region run by its own people, as has been confirmed by our research and by the Rebel Army government. The Alliance's "colony" is an embassy under Ardorian law, and therefore protected diplomatic space. Neither one of these violate the Articles.

The next time you try stirring up trouble for North America for imperialistic means, please try harder.

Under your own definition, hawaii is a colony, same as midway, andorian antarctica and the Alliance's base. Maybe you should update the Articles to reflect all these exceptions.

As for the history, we have note of at least two countries who flourished on those islands and those islands alone, namely Ishiopia. And if you were really looking to be unbiased, you would define the Americas based on Geographic boundaries, rather than Political, which what all the furor seems to be about.

[Michael McBride]

Under your own definition, hawaii is a colony, same as midway, andorian antarctica and the Alliance's base. Maybe you should update the Articles to reflect all these exceptions.

As for the history, we have note of at least two countries who flourished on those islands and those islands alone, namely Ishiopia. And if you were really looking to be unbiased, you would define the Americas based on Geographic boundaries, rather than Political, which what all the furor seems to be about.

Except, once again, you are mistaken. Hawaii is not separate from their government in Tahoe. If you wanted to use that definition, then all of your other islands from your main one would be colonies. The Alliance's "base", as you call it, is an embassy, a diplomatic conclave that every civilized nation has, and is not a colony. As for the other two examples, again, they have no place here, as neither of those nations have signed the Articles we cannot force them to give those lands away.

Further, once again, you fail to show proof where the Hawaiian Islands are not a part of the North American continent. Considering this is the third time we have asked, we feel that you have shown the world that there is no proof of your incompetent claims and will leave the issue. Another nation residing there does not mean it is on a different continent. If that were the case, then the land we currently occupy would have switched between three different continents in the last twenty years.

[LeVentNoir]

Except, once again, you are mistaken. Hawaii is not separate from their government in Tahoe. If you wanted to use that definition, then all of your other islands from your main one would be colonies. The Alliance's "base", as you call it, is an embassy, a diplomatic conclave that every civilized nation has, and is not a colony. As for the other two examples, again, they have no place here, as neither of those nations have signed the Articles we cannot force them to give those lands away.

Further, once again, you fail to show proof where the Hawaiian Islands are not a part of the North American continent. Considering this is the third time we have asked, we feel that you have shown the world that there is no proof of your incompetent claims and will leave the issue. Another nation residing there does not mean it is on a different continent. If that were the case, then the land we currently occupy would have switched between three different continents in the last twenty years.

And by your definition, they are! Your definition defines both Hawaii and over 99% of Aotearoan islands as colonies. You may want to revise this.

Ok, how is this for some proof. They are over 3200km from the nearest continental land in the Americans. I think any island with over three thousand km of water between it and a continent should be recognized by intelligent nations to not be part of the continent.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

"Unfortunately, or Fortunately for some as the case may be, we find Greater Aotearoa's classification to be flawless and we agree. That island is not North American. The plate boundary is all the way back in L.A."

Edited July 7, 2009 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Lavo]

Are they not, however, still considered citizens of Rebel Army? Are they not protected by at least a modest amount of Rebel Army's military might?

"They voted and wished to be what they are, who are you to say Ecuadorians cannot chose their own future? Too many Ecuadorians have been murdered due to this, and we wish to make it clear that Ecuador is happy how it is and above all else wished to be as such in the first place. The local government is entirely compromised of Ecuadorians (handles all domestic issues, has it's own taxes, etc.), has not been "colonized" or settled by Arabs/Israelis/Persians/etc., have proportional representation in the Knesset, and finally about military presence... There are no RN vessels or armoured units in Ecuador. All the soldiers stationed in Ecuador are Ecuadorian, and the RAF units stationed there are also all Ecuadorians or at least the majority of them (90+%) are. Now if you think (or still think) they are just a "second-class" RA state, explain to me why they were chosen to house and man much of Project Caelum, our space program? Even with the acquisition of the space elevator and Equatorial Star, Ecuador is still one of the top contributors and subcontractors for Caelum. Really, I cannot see how Ecuador can be viewed as a colony or imperialist holding. If you can bring some credible evidence to support this, it would be greatly appreciated."

[Michael McBride]

And by your definition, they are! Your definition defines both Hawaii and over 99% of Aotearoan islands as colonies. You may want to revise this.

Ok, how is this for some proof. They are over 3200km from the nearest continental land in the Americans. I think any island with over three thousand km of water between it and a continent should be recognized by intelligent nations to not be part of the continent.

Then what continent is it on? Asia? South America? Australia? It is farther from any of those three than it is from North America. Your argument is flawed.

"Unfortunately, or Fortunately for some as the case may be, we find Greater Aotearoa's classification to be flawless and we agree. That island is not North American. The plate boundary is all the way back in L.A."

Using tectonic plates to determine what continent a land mass is on is foolhardy at best. Using our logic, Iceland is a part of the North American continent and the Baha Peninsula is not. In fact, eastern Russia is a part of North America as well. India is not a part of Asia then, but is instead its own continent. Europe and Asia are not separate continents, but rather one large one. Your argument is flawed at best and downright stupid at worst.

[iamthey]

Then what continent is it on? Asia? South America? Australia? It is farther from any of those three than it is from North America. Your argument is flawed.

Its part of the pacific sphere of influence. Lets look at the matter historically. The Hawwian islands were originally controlled by a natively born population who reigned with a queen. People from the americas namely the business led a coup to seize them for the value of their sugar cane production then it was annexed into one of the countries located on the Americas to remove tariff profit losses on sugar cane imports. This eventually fell into the hands of tahoe. They are very clearly a foreign people or territory subjected to a foreign rule. Honestly I don't really care of tahoe has a colony, I just find it odd that they would insist the America's are closed to colonial holdings, and insist colonies are immoral when in reality they are practicing just the opposite. And if with time a colonial holder can come to understand the land well enough to govern it as his own homeland as you have said in defense of tahoe then why doesn't that apply to any other colony?

The truth is there is no real reason why colonies are inherently bad, its just an overused excuse to remove people you don't want around. Historical examples of colonies and their corrupting nature are no longer relevant as the "native" population of the Americas or any other area on this globe is at an equal level in regards to military capacity and economic output making the chances that a colony could exploit the Americas very very slim at worst.

Edited July 7, 2009 by iamthey

[HHAYD]

Then what continent is it on? Asia? South America? Australia? It is farther from any of those three than it is from North America. Your argument is flawed.

Pacific islands?

[LeVentNoir]

Its part of the pacific sphere of influence.

Indeed, not all islands have to be tied along to a continent they are blatantly not part of.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

Using tectonic plates to determine what continent a land mass is on is foolhardy at best. Using our logic, Iceland is a part of the North American continent and the Baha Peninsula is not. In fact, eastern Russia is a part of North America as well. India is not a part of Asia then, but is instead its own continent. Europe and Asia are not separate continents, but rather one large one. Your argument is flawed at best and downright stupid at worst.

"India is a subcontinent and indeed is not part of Asia. The Empire uses geologic classifications for determining what is part of which continent. We go by the plates. Every statement you have made past it being foolhardy would be accurate. The Baja is Pacific."

"Is it not Geology that has even defined what a continent is?"

Edited July 7, 2009 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Voodoo Nova]

"India is a subcontinent and indeed is not part of Asia. The Empire uses geologic classifications for determining what is part of which continent. We go by the plates. Every statement you have made past it being foolhardy would be accurate. The Baja is Pacific."

"Is it not Geology that has even defined what a continent is?"

"So Glorious Aotearoa is Australian, and has just as equal a claim to Pacific Islands as anyone else."

[LeVentNoir]

"So Glorious Aotearoa is Australian, and has just as equal a claim to Pacific Islands as anyone else."

Actually, we bridge two tectonic plates, and are in fact the tips of the submerged continent, Zealandia. Not Australian at all.

[Michael McBride]

Its part of the pacific sphere of influence. Lets look at the matter historically. The Hawwian islands were originally controlled by a natively born population who reigned with a queen. People from the americas namely the business led a coup to seize them for the value of their sugar cane production then it was annexed into one of the countries located on the Americas to remove tariff profit losses on sugar cane imports. This eventually fell into the hands of tahoe. They are very clearly a foreign people or territory subjected to a foreign rule. Honestly I don't really care of tahoe has a colony, I just find it odd that they would insist the America's are closed to colonial holdings, and insist colonies are immoral when in reality they are practicing just the opposite. And if with time a colonial holder can come to understand the land well enough to govern it as his own homeland as you have said in defense of tahoe then why doesn't that apply to any other colony?

The truth is there is no real reason why colonies are inherently bad, its just an overused excuse to remove people you don't want around. Historical examples of colonies and their corrupting nature are no longer relevant as the "native" population of the Americas or any other area on this globe is at an equal level in regards to military capacity and economic output making the chances that a colony could exploit the Americas very very slim at worst.

The Republic of Tahoe can correct me if I am wrong, though I doubt I am, but I believe that there are very few traces of the native people left on Hawaii. Very much like there are very few traces of the Seminole tribe here in Xaristan. I'm sure many, if not all, citizens on Hawaii can trace their heritage back generations to Irish-Americans. Therefore, they are not a people subject to a foreign rule.

Pacific islands?

Please show me a single history book with a continent labeled the "Pacific Islands". And people wonder why we don't listen to such an incompetent government.

Indeed, not all islands have to be tied along to a continent they are blatantly not part of.

Except that all islands are, inherently, tied to a continent. All of your islands are considered a part of the Australian continent. I ask you again, where is Hawaii closer to? If we base it off the mainlands, Hawaii is 2000mi from the mainland North America and 5200mi from mainland Australia, and approximately 4000mi from Japan. 2000 seems a lot less than 5200 or 4000, therefore it only makes sense that Hawaii is considered part of the North American continent.

"India is a subcontinent and indeed is not part of Asia. The Empire uses geologic classifications for determining what is part of which continent. We go by the plates. Every statement you have made past it being foolhardy would be accurate. The Baja is Pacific."

"Is it not Geology that has even defined what a continent is?"

No. A continent is a man-made term, a man-made definition. Last I checked geology and nature didn't write books defining what a continent was, man did. The Baja is in the Pacific? Laughable. It is connected to North America. But then I guess you consider the southern half of New Zealand to be part of the Antarctic continent as well?

[Raritan]

Except that all islands are, inherently, tied to a continent. All of your islands are considered a part of the Australian continent. I ask you again, where is Hawaii closer to? If we base it off the mainlands, Hawaii is 2000mi from the mainland North America and 5200mi from mainland Australia, and approximately 4000mi from Japan. 2000 seems a lot less than 5200 or 4000, therefore it only makes sense that Hawaii is considered part of the North American continent.

The term continent is a geopolitical term and is subject to interpretation by various people or governments. If neither side is willing to make concessions, an agreement will never be reached.

That said, Hawaii (and Midway) are both part of a chain of islands and underwater volcanos formed by a hotspot in the Pacific Ocean. It never has, is not, and never will be, geologically speaking, part of a continental landmass.

[LeVentNoir]

Except that all islands are, inherently, tied to a continent. All of your islands are considered a part of the Australian continent. I ask you again, where is Hawaii closer to? If we base it off the mainlands, Hawaii is 2000mi from the mainland North America and 5200mi from mainland Australia, and approximately 4000mi from Japan. 2000 seems a lot less than 5200 or 4000, therefore it only makes sense that Hawaii is considered part of the North American continent.

Thats is immature, backwards and laudable.

All of Aotearoan Islands are considered part of Australia? What nonsense. Our lands and waters stretch far and wide, including ones such as the Pitcairns and Rapa Nui, much closer to south america than anything else. What about the line islands? They are only slightly further from North America than Hawaii, and obviously closer to that than Australia. So, we simply dismiss your fantastical claims that Glorious Aotearoa is an Australian nation, with all its islands considered Australian.

Secondly, Although Hawaii is closer to North America, it seems that you cannot grasp the idea that islands in the middle of an ocean do not need to be arbitrarily forced into classification with a continent.

[Michael McBride]

Thats is immature, backwards and laudable.

Secondly, Although Hawaii is closer to North America, it seems that you cannot grasp the idea that islands in the middle of an ocean do not need to be arbitrarily forced into classification with a continent.

We're glad that you find our stance laudable. Or is that not perhaps what you meant? Perhaps a lesson in grammar as well as geography would do you well.

What you do not seem to grasp is that for many, many years, the Hawaiian Islands have been considered a part of the North American continent. Period. No debate. Your assertion that they are not is only a thinly veiled reason to try and get land from nations whom you do not get along with. Quit being so imperialistic and treating the Pacific as your own personal playground, and people might actually take you seriously.

We are done with this geographic debate. As Ardoria has said, neither side will compromise. Those that have signed the Articles consider Hawaii to be a part of the North American continent, and will not be asking the Republic of Tahoe to relinquish them. End of discussion.

[Arkantos]

Those that have signed the Articles consider Hawaii to be a part of the North American continent, and will not be asking the Republic of Tahoe to relinquish them. End of discussion.

How funny. Hawaii is smack in the middle of the Pacific plate.

OOC: kthxbai.

[LeVentNoir]

What you do not seem to grasp is that for many, many years, the Hawaiian Islands have been considered a part of the North American continent. Period. No debate. Your assertion that they are not is only a thinly veiled reason to try and get land from nations whom you do not get along with. Quit being so imperialistic and treating the Pacific as your own personal playground, and people might actually take you seriously.

We are done with this geographic debate. As Ardoria has said, neither side will compromise. Those that have signed the Articles consider Hawaii to be a part of the North American continent, and will not be asking the Republic of Tahoe to relinquish them. End of discussion.

You mean to say, for many years those islands have been the colonial possession of nations mainly resting on the North American Continent during which time the native population has died out, and we will use that as basis for a complete perversion of geographic logic.

Of course the signatories of the Articles would consider them part of the american continent, they wish to revel in their hypocrisy by forcing other nations to give up their colonies while retaining their own.

Good day.

[Michael McBride]

How funny. Hawaii is smack in the middle of the Pacific plate.

OOC: kthxbai.

How funny. Iceland is part of the North American plate.

OOC: kthnxbai

[Arkantos]

How funny. Iceland is part of the North American plate.

OOC: kthnxbai

Learn your tectonic plates. Iceland is only half on the North American plate. The other half is on the Eurasian plate.

[Subtleknifewielder]

"They voted and wished to be what they are, who are you to say Ecuadorians cannot chose their own future? Too many Ecuadorians have been murdered due to this, and we wish to make it clear that Ecuador is happy how it is and above all else wished to be as such in the first place. The local government is entirely compromised of Ecuadorians (handles all domestic issues, has it's own taxes, etc.), has not been "colonized" or settled by Arabs/Israelis/Persians/etc., have proportional representation in the Knesset, and finally about military presence... There are no RN vessels or armoured units in Ecuador. All the soldiers stationed in Ecuador are Ecuadorian, and the RAF units stationed there are also all Ecuadorians or at least the majority of them (90+%) are. Now if you think (or still think) they are just a "second-class" RA state, explain to me why they were chosen to house and man much of Project Caelum, our space program? Even with the acquisition of the space elevator and Equatorial Star, Ecuador is still one of the top contributors and subcontractors for Caelum. Really, I cannot see how Ecuador can be viewed as a colony or imperialist holding. If you can bring some credible evidence to support this, it would be greatly appreciated."

"We are no longer calling it a colony, merely pointing out that though they govern themselves, they still carry your name, call themselves part of you. If they have representation in your Knesset, they are part of your government, and still subject to laws passed by that government, correct? Having a say in all that does indeed elevate them from colony to full equals, but still they must abide by the laws, nless we miss our guess. Correct?"

Then what continent is it on? Asia? South America? Australia? It is farther from any of those three than it is from North America. Your argument is flawed.

Except that all islands are, inherently, tied to a continent. All of your islands are considered a part of the Australian continent. I ask you again, where is Hawaii closer to? If we base it off the mainlands, Hawaii is 2000mi from the mainland North America and 5200mi from mainland Australia, and approximately 4000mi from Japan. 2000 seems a lot less than 5200 or 4000, therefore it only makes sense that Hawaii is considered part of the North American continent.

No. A continent is a man-made term, a man-made definition. Last I checked geology and nature didn't write books defining what a continent was, man did. The Baja is in the Pacific? Laughable. It is connected to North America. But then I guess you consider the southern half of New Zealand to be part of the Antarctic continent as well?

"What is this foolhardy reason that all islands must nececearrily be considered part of any continent? If they are thousands of miles away, no reasonable mind would arbitrarily assign them a continent simply because it is the closest."

Edited July 7, 2009 by Subtleknifewielder

[Manetheren]

Secondly, Although Hawaii is closer to North America, it seems that you cannot grasp the idea that islands in the middle of an ocean do not need to be arbitrarily forced into classification with a continent.

Then why arbitrarily force them into classification with islands even farther away?

Its part of the pacific sphere of influence. Lets look at the matter historically. The Hawwian islands were originally controlled by a natively born population who reigned with a queen. People from the americas namely the business led a coup to seize them for the value of their sugar cane production then it was annexed into one of the countries located on the Americas to remove tariff profit losses on sugar cane imports. This eventually fell into the hands of tahoe. They are very clearly a foreign people or territory subjected to a foreign rule

Actually, lets look at matters historically. Hawaii was settled, originally, by colonists from Polynesia. After contact with the British, they formed a nation, the Kingdom of Hawaii, after Kamehameha I unified the islands using technology imported from those British contacts. The Kingdom of Hawaii did its best to westernize itself, forming a great deal of relationships with the United States and United Kingdom in particular. It had no relationship with other parts of the Pacific. Eventually, settlers from America formed a great deal of power, politically and economically on the island. When the Tahoe Republic fought for, and gained, its independence from the United States beginning in the 1850's, many opponents of Tahoan independence fled California, which was both the epicenter of the revolution and the location of the greatest number of settlers who did not support Tahoan independence. They overthrew the native dynasty and formed the Republic of Ishiopia. After long decades of immigration, native Hawaiians became a strong minority in Hawaii itself. Ishiopia had a great deal of contact with Tahoe, claiming to be the government of California in exile (the American backed governor of California during the final days of the Tahoan revolution fled to Hawaii with his cabinet). Eventually Tahoe invaded and subjugated Ishiopia, although in the past 50 years it has assumed a very Tahoan nature, with very few inhabitants of Ishiopia remaining after being replaced with Tahoan settlers, much like the native Hawaiians were replaced by American/Ishiopians.

Remarkably similar to how New Zealand was conquered and colonized by the British, wouldn't you say.

Now, the fact remains, Hawaii is not part of any continent. No island in the Pacific is. However, due to the cultural and social history discussed above, there is no doubt that the Hawaiian islands are, and have been since the time of discovery by Europeans, a part of the greater American continent. Geographically, no, they are not part of America. Socially, politically, economically...they are as part of America as Tierra Del Fuego.

[Arkantos]

Then you just defined Hawaii as not part of North America, thus, your doctrine does not apply to Hawaii.

[Manetheren]

Then you just defined Hawaii as not part of North America, thus, your doctrine does not apply to Hawaii.

Hawaii is not geologically part of the American Continent, that is true. However, it is also true that Northern Russia and Iceland are part of the American tectonic plate and no sane person would consider them a part of America. As we stated, for those who wish to comprehend what they read, socially, politically, economically Hawaii is a part of America and always has been. Just as Iceland is a part of Europe or Japan a part of Asia or Madagascar a part of Africa.

[LeVentNoir]

Then why arbitrarily force them into classification with islands even farther away?

Now, the fact remains, Hawaii is not part of any continent. No island in the Pacific is. However, due to the cultural and social history discussed above, there is no doubt that the Hawaiian islands are, and have been since the time of discovery by Europeans, a part of the greater American continent. Geographically, no, they are not part of America. Socially, politically, economically...they are as part of America as Tierra Del Fuego.

To the first point, we do not.

To the second, geographically, you have a colony. Thank you for admitting it. Now we could compare some fairly simple characteristics about your colony and any possible colony in the Americas.

Has to be separated from the home nation. Hawaii: yes, American Colony: yes.

Socially, politically, economically part of the home nation. Hawaii: yes, American Colony: yes in this age of rapid communication.

Has to have existed long enough that most nations accept it. Hawaii: yes, American Colony: yes, given time.

So, we find that unless you wish to have your nation portrayed as highly hypocritical, we doubt you shall present much resistance to other nations forming colonies in the Americas.

Hawaii is not geologically part of the American Continent, that is true. However, it is also true that Northern Russia and Iceland are part of the American tectonic plate and no sane person would consider them a part of America. As we stated, for those who wish to comprehend what they read, socially, politically, economically Hawaii is a part of America and always has been. Just as Iceland is a part of Europe or Japan a part of Asia or Madagascar a part of Africa.

They never said that northern russia nor iceland were part of the North American Continent. And they are not, just like hawaii. And since your Articles are based on political / social change should not the definition of the American Continents be based on Geography?

On that note, please issue a formal, comprehensive statement showing the lands defined to be part of the American Continents.

Edited July 7, 2009 by LeVentNoir