Author: yuan_zcen

Hawaii 'independence' was suppressed [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2008-8-27 01:32:47 |Display all floors
Kodama,

The greater restrictions on the right to vote, however, were not out of line with those practiced elsewhere in the world and the net result was an increase in the power of Native Hawaiians. Moreover, it's not clear to me how many Hawaiians would actually have lost voting rights because I don't have any actual data on voting. I would think that had you studied the issue carefully, you would have raised the issue of non-citizen voters as being suspect. You have not, which reinforces my opinion that you are not as well-versed in the issue as you act. The fact is, however, that the net electoral effect of Native Hawaiians increased after the Bayonet Constitution due to the disenfranchisement of Asians, so there can be no argument that the government would not have approved annexation without it--presuming, of course, that the king was reduced but I don't see you defending monarchy per se--as Native Hawaiians would have less actual say before the constitution as opposed to after. At any rate, some reports put the number of Native Hawaiians lower than half, as few as one-quarter of the islands residents were Native Hawaiians due to the immigration policies of the Kingdom which encouraged non-Hawaiians to settle there to bring capital, knowledge and other goods most easily gained (in that period) by immigration.

There is no evidence that US business would have been advanced considerably by the annexation of Hawaii. The only major concern would have been military. However, this cannot be given as an adequate basis for annexation. As you are no doubt aware, the country was in such dire straits financially that Liliuokalani was toying with the idea of opium legalization as a way to raise money and the US had to assume the debts accumulated under Kalakaua when the country was annexed. So it is not at all clear that the US had particular motive to annex versus lease the space it required. Indeed, that space could have likely been obtained for a flat payment less than what was paid to annex the country. There is quite little evidence that the US was seeking Hawaiian annexation because there is little evidence of a benefit to the US from it.

I'm going to deny that this is the pattern of US expansion but I will deny that there is anything odd or unique about it. Economic considerations drive most revolutions anywhere: the US seceded from Great Britain for economic reasons, Mexico was tired of economic exploitation by Spain, France tired of exploitation by England, the Dutch by exploitation from Spain, Italy formed to present a stronger economic and therefore political force in Europe, the Hungarians thought the Empire didn't serve their interests.

None of these states would have joined the US afterward if they did not feel that it suited their interests and I am not going to debate with you what the private thoughts of people in the 19th century were because neither of us are privy. What is clear is that you aren't actually examining the issues, you're doing exactly what I said you do. Tell me, was it an American plot that a variety of Mexican provinces tried to break away from Santa Ana's government? Of course not and the US showed no interest, even though they could have easily taken them at the time and many of these provinces were rich agricultural and silver mining regions.

The claim that the US actively sought out territories rather than had them handed to them by the actions of others is hard to maintain because the US never did begin a war of conquest. Even in the case of the Mexican-American War, there is clear evidence that Santa Ana sought to provoke a war with the US to recover Texas. We have warning from the British and French ambassadors that Santa Ana's policies would lead to a war he would not win and we have Santa Ana's stated conviction that he would succeed. So, no, your view of history doesn't really hold water at all.
"Justice prevails... evil justice."

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2008-8-27 01:41:44 |Display all floors
Since it won't let me edit, the addition must be made here:

It should not surprise that the involvement of Americans featured prominently in each case. The US had the most mobile population in the Americas at the time and the largest. The US had the technical capacities and capital resources that other states attempted to attract. Hawaii had been reliant on importing skilled workers and managers from Britain and the US ever since Kamehameha I died and the province of Texas was actually established as a settlement colony for Americans in order to boost the productivity of the region--first for the Spanish crown and then for the Mexican government. Indeed, Texas settlement was part of a broader policy of attracting American support for the annexation of parts of the Louisiana purchase by New Spain, which hoped to capitalize on disaffected people there who had been pushed off their land by high prices in the east (the usual reason for migration west). With the exception of the latter, none of these were conspiracies. US open immigration itself aimed at providing more labor to factories and greater development to outlying possessions, this was a common practice beyond Europe and, for the countries near the it, the US was actually a potentially lucrative source of immigrants. So there are significant non-conspiratorial reasons that Americans play a heavy role in all events on the continent they live on.
"Justice prevails... evil justice."

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2008-8-27 02:27:35 |Display all floors

For Post #37 for interesing - Texas Settlement?

Not sure what Texas settlement you are talking about. Texas belonged to Mexico before 1835. Why should it need any settlement imposed from the US or from anybody?

It was Austin and his boys among the American 'pioneers' who cheated the Mexican government in Texas by professing to convert to Catholic and to abide by the Mexican laws in exchange for being allowed to settle down in that Mexican land.

Of course, those American boys did neither. In stead, they plotted a revolt and split Texas from Mexico in 1835 when they though they had outnumbered the local Mexicans.

Or was it the other way round?

Didn't the German chancellor, Angela Merkel just think of "the principal of territorial integrity, which is one of the basic principles of internatioanl law" as something that cannot be violated?

Is "the principe of territorial integrity" just a one-day old, newly coined concept? Shouldn't the US return Texas back to Mexico under Merkel's principle?

How many pieces of foreign lands has the US grabbed by violating the principle of territorial integrity?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2008-8-27 02:50:10 |Display all floors

For Post #37 for interesting - Louisiana Purchase by New Spain?

Sorry, interesing, but I got confused when you said "attracting American support for the annexation of parts of the Louisiana purchase by New Spain..."

Who made the Louisiana Purchase? In which year did the Lousiana Purchase happen?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2008-8-27 02:50:40 |Display all floors

For Post #37 for interesting - Louisiana Purchase by New Spain?

Sorry, interesing, but I got confused when you said "attracting American support for the annexation of parts of the Louisiana purchase by New Spain..."

Who made the Louisiana Purchase? In which year did the Lousiana Purchase happen?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2008-8-27 02:56:35 |Display all floors
The Louisiana Purchase was made by the Jefferson administration in 1803 at a cost of around $15M USD.

[ Last edited by interesting at 2008-8-27 12:44 AM ]
"Justice prevails... evil justice."

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2008-8-27 03:30:16 |Display all floors

For Post #37 for interesting - The US never did begin a war of conquest?

This is not true, interesting!

Take Texas. The US instigated an armed rebellion in Texas in 1835 and took it away from Mexico through a bloody warfare. Did Mexico give Texas to Uncle Sam as a Christmas gift? Did you ever find any piece of evidence that Mexico willingly, unconditionally, one-sidedly, peacefully and happily give Texas to the Unied States and never wanted it back?

If Texas was grabbed from Mexico by force, General Santa Ana and his Mexican troops had every right to reclaime it, right? If your property is grabbed by your neighbor by force, you have every right to get back what belongs to you. Would you then invite your neighbor in to plunder two more rooms of your house?

The US not only took Texas from a soverign state Mexico, but also grabbed California, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, etc. from Mexico. More over, the US troops invaded deep into Mexico and forced Mexico to "sell" one third of its land to the US at gun point after capturing the Mexico City in 1846. The US even wanted to annex the whole of Mexico. Did you find any evidence indicating Mexico willingly, unilaterally, unconditionally, peacefully and happily give all these lands to the United States?

No wonder the "manifest destiny" was finally accomplished, mostly through wars of conquest to expand the US territory, just contrary to what you claimed.

It's amazing, intereing, the way you "perceive" history and twist logic and common sense. Pity really, history books were and are not written your way. Show us a decent history book or source that says US grabbed these Mexican lands without using force, or at the friendly and happy invitation of the Mexican government. Tell us that invading another country's territories is not an act of war, but is an act of peace and charity.

History did not happen the way you want us to believe, unfortunately, no matter how you try to turn it around one way or another to suit your purpose.

By the way, did you notice the many loopholes in your "watertight" explanations above regarding Hawaii and the US international behavior?

[ Last edited by xinghai at 2008-8-27 03:52 AM ]

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.