Author: yuan_zcen

Hawaii 'independence' was suppressed [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 4

Post time 2008-8-24 09:06:51 |Display all floors
Originally posted by interesting at 2008-8-23 17:47
Kodama,

I'm not stretching the truth at all. I laid down the facts: Republicans couldn't get the majority required and finally got the annexation by bending the rules. The Anti-Imperialist League lobbied very successfully and anti-annexationists were not some uncommon feature of the US political landscape. I fail to see where the truth is being stretched. I think it is you who stretches the truth, or at least attempts an undue simplification of it. In any event, I suspect you were educated in the US because you seem to have the standard leftist history talking points down pat. Now, if only any actual historians agreed.....


It's stretching the truth because it wasn't that the Spanish-American War suddenly led to them deciding to annex Hawaii, they were working on it since the overthrow happened and began negotiating it when McKinley came into office. The reason Republicans couldn't get it past is because they needed 2/3 and they only had enough for a simple majority hence why they "bent the rules" as you put it. Also the Anti-Imperialist League wasn't really formed in time to oppose Hawaiian annexation, they were in fact formed to push against the annexation of the Phillipines. They failed. That's because at that time the Republican party dominated and that was the party of imperialism in the time.

As far as the nonsense about leftist history, I'll have you know I didn't learn this stuff through the education system. I learned it independently by looking at the facts of the situation.

The domestic revolt in Hawaii involved American, British and Native Hawaiians. More importantly, these were duly elected and appointed members of the Hawaiian government and the revolt only occurred because Liliuokalani wanted to create a new constitution, in an attempt to restore the authority of the monarchy lost under Kalakaua.


Lost in another revolution by white business elites primarily intended to increase the power of those same elites. They had elections before that actually let native Hawaiians have much more say, but the white business establishment wasn't too happy about that.

This was a battle of American hegemony against Hawaiian independence. The primary instigators of the overthrow were Americans and people descendant from Americans who also maintained strong ties with the U.S. The U.S. itself dominated the market in Hawaii and the power of American business elites insured this hegemony continued. When that hegemony was threatened by the monarchy, it was overthrown, replaced, and the country was then annexed, keeping it from ever happening again. You can argue that the business interests there were actually the ones who started it and it wasn't connected to the U.S. government, but that's really just naivety. They worked in collusion with elements of the U.S. government and they weren't about to let some silly legislative opposition get in the way of expanding America's borders.

The most important reason for revolutionaries to desire annexation wasn't US imperial ambitions but US trade protectionism: in order to have markets for the most important Hawaiian goods, trade with the US would need to occur unimpeded. There were significant business motives and I remind you that this same group had supported Kalakaua's attempt to start a Pacific Federation just decades before, one which would have contained US power.


How is maintaining American domination of trade with Hawaii not the same as imperialist ambition? In fact, most imperial actions are all about maintaining domination of the trade with a specific country. That was the entire reason for the British Empire's dominance of India.

As to patting on the back: I'm not seeing those links and I'm not seeing back-patting.


Of course, that's because you're woefully unaware of your own bias. Really, it's not too hard to see where the back-patting is. I guess you assume as long as you avoid saying the U.S. was right you can always argue for its actions being justified without making it clear where your support lies.

So far this thread has unfolded like every other time I argue against anti-Americans: I lay down an airtight historical or logical case without any actual moral judgments.


It just so happens your "airtight" argument always reflects favorably on American aggression. No unbiased look would come off so nice towards the U.S.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2008-8-24 11:45:13 |Display all floors
Kodama,

Basically, your point is this: you accept my entire account of what happened but wish to place a spin on it. The fact is that the revolt involved people with Hawaiian citizenship. The fact is that there was significant political opposition to the annexation of Hawaii. The fact is that Hawaii and the US had ties through trade because--big revelation here--the US was the only state close to Hawaii with a shortage of Hawaiian produce like cane sugar. The original constitution that Liliuokalani tried to remove was imposed to make Hawaii a constitutional monarchy and would not have empowered anyone to push for annexation.

You don't deny these facts. However, while I have read the plain and candid record of events, you have imagined conspiracies and cast aspersions, putting an intense spin on events which I have placed before you. You even go so far as to accuse me of back-patting when I have not once expressed any approval of the annexation.

Why do my airtight cases always reflect favorably on the US? They don't. I have not once argued that annexation was justified or unjustified, I have merely argued that as a legal matter the case is settled: the US had every right to annex the Republic of Hawaii. I have maintained--with fact where you offer only speculation and subjective judgments--that there was significant opposition to annexation; in pursuit of said claim I have offered an objective yardstick of significance: that there was enough opposition to force Republicans to bend Congressional rules. That seems, to me and to most, a clear sign of significant opposition.

You read too much into what I have written and it seems too much to ask that you examine issues objectively.
"Justice prevails... evil justice."

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2008-8-25 08:44:10 |Display all floors
Originally posted by interesting at 2008-8-24 11:45
Kodama,

Basically, your point is this: you accept my entire account of what happened but wish to place a spin on it. The fact is that the revolt involved people with Hawaiian citizenship.


No spin, it's just an accurate account. They were Hawaiian citizens just like those South Ossetians were Russian citizens. That doesn't keep them from being pawns of their motherland.

The fact is that there was significant political opposition to the annexation of Hawaii.


There was and the same for many other American policies that got implemented anyway because the establishment favored them.

The original constitution that Liliuokalani tried to remove was imposed to make Hawaii a constitutional monarchy and would not have empowered anyone to push for annexation.


There was no need for annexation because they white American oligarchy controlled the country. Their control was assured so there was no need for an overthrow or annexation.

You don't deny these facts. However, while I have read the plain and candid record of events, you have imagined conspiracies and cast aspersions, putting an intense spin on events which I have placed before you.


Imagined conspiracies? I'm looking at the historical record here my friend. The U.S. government backed the annexationist government. Several U.S. government officials had involvement in the coup as well.

Why do my airtight cases always reflect favorably on the US? They don't.


Provide me a link of one argument that didn't and if I'm satisfied I'll give you a link of one that did.

I have not once argued that annexation was justified or unjustified, I have merely argued that as a legal matter the case is settled: the US had every right to annex the Republic of Hawaii.


Every right by what account? If you think that is a neutral position then you must be delusional.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2008-8-25 20:31:44 |Display all floors
Free Hawai'i Now!

The Hawaiian sovereignty movement consists of organizations and individuals seeking some form of sovereignty for Hawai'i.

This protest was suppressed in Honolulu!

The 20 people who were arrested yesterday for peacefully asking for Hawaii Independence need urgent support from the International Community!

Why?

Generally, the movement's focus is on self-determination and self-governance for Native Hawaiians.
In some instances the focus also includes redress from the United States for the 1893 overthrow of Queen Lili'uokalani, and for what is seen as a prolonged military occupation beginning in 1898 with the annexation of the Republic of Hawaii to the United States, and continuing until the present day.

Hawaii was never American until the monarchy was overthrown!

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2008-8-25 20:36:05 |Display all floors
The apology by the U.S. government is not enough!

On November 15, 1993, President of the United States Bill Clinton signed an Apology Resolution apologizing on behalf of the American people for the U.S. Government's role in the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2008-8-26 02:02:54 |Display all floors
Kodama,

Actually, the first leaders of the Hawaiian Republic weren't just Hawaiian citizens, but people who had been Kalakaua's advisors and the president was, in fact, Hawaii's chief jurist. That's not quite the same as Russia handing out passports on the basis of a Soviet nationality law meant to allow ethnic Russians to resettle to the Russian SSR as the USSR broke up.

I think your characterization of the revolutionaries is rather false. Not all of them favored annexation in the least, though all wanted to pursue some form of arrangement with the US to protect them from the British and French (who were trying to expand trans-Pacific possessions).

So far you've not produced anything that appears to be historical record. The events I have described are without doubt, but I don't have anything from you indicating how and when they received support. When you get around to producing it, I had better see something more than encouragement from Congressmen.

It seems that you don't have the evidence of back-patting I have asked you for. In addition, my position is quite neutral.

Tell me: if you say that the available police reports and traffic camera data show that someone has every right to file an insurance claim against another driver, do you take that to be a non-neutral position?
"Justice prevails... evil justice."

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2008-8-26 09:11:57 |Display all floors
Originally posted by interesting at 2008-8-26 02:02
Actually, the first leaders of the Hawaiian Republic weren't just Hawaiian citizens, but people who had been Kalakaua's advisors and the president was, in fact, Hawaii's chief jurist. That's not quite the same as Russia handing out passports on the basis of a Soviet nationality law meant to allow ethnic Russians to resettle to the Russian SSR as the USSR broke up.

I think your characterization of the revolutionaries is rather false. Not all of them favored annexation in the least, though all wanted to pursue some form of arrangement with the US to protect them from the British and French (who were trying to expand trans-Pacific possessions).


The people who were the primary instigators of the coup were part of a group that advocated annexation. You want to try and spin the historical record and ignore the basic underlying fact that white propertied Americans with backing from sympathetic voices in the U.S. government overthrew the Hawaiian government in order to have the country annexed by the United States a goal at which they succeeded in spite of opposition.

You keep trying to manipulate things to pass it off as some sort of domestic revolt by Hawaiians, that just happened to consist primarily of white American immigrants and their descendants, against a government trying to take power away from the elected government. The reality is the monarchy was trying to abolish a constitution that disenfranchised thousands of native Hawaiians to the benefit of rich foreign oligarchs who had used the threat of violent force to push that constitution down the throat of the monarchy.

So far you've not produced anything that appears to be historical record. The events I have described are without doubt, but I don't have anything from you indicating how and when they received support. When you get around to producing it, I had better see something more than encouragement from Congressmen.


So far you haven't produce anything either.  The burden of proof is on you my friend.

It seems that you don't have the evidence of back-patting I have asked you for. In addition, my position is quite neutral.


"Neutral"? I do have the evidence, however I would be much more interested in seeing if you can actually point something out where you argued against an act of American aggression. If you can do that I'll provide you with the evidence you ask for, since it's much easier for me to get my evidence then it will be for you.

Tell me: if you say that the available police reports and traffic camera data show that someone has every right to file an insurance claim against another driver, do you take that to be a non-neutral position?


No, but I do take it to be a non-neutral position when you say the U.S. has a legal right to annex foreign countries without approving a treaty of annexation. I certainly don't take it to be a non-neutral position when you suggest trying to dominate the commerce of a country by annexing it is not imperialism.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.