HAWAII'S LAST QUEEN
"On January 16, 1893,four boatloads of United States Marines armed with Gatling guns and hundreds of rounds of ammunition came ashore in Honolulu, capital of the independent Kingdom of Hawaii.
As the Royal Hawaiian band played a concert at the Hawaiian Hotel, 162 troops marched through the streets of Honolulu, heading for the palace. The Queen of Hawaii, Lili'uokalani, looked down from her balcony as the troops took up their positions.
The following day, she surrendered at gunpoint, yielding her throne to the government of the United States. A provisional government led by wealthy white sugar growers assumed control of Hawaii and petitioned the US for annexation."
Hawai'i was a kingdom, but by no stretch of the imagination was it tyrannical or oppressive.
The source of ALL of Hawai'i's woes rest soley on the haoles who controlled the sugar.
Prior to the arrival of the first Europeans in 1778, the Native Hawaiian people lived in a highly organized, self-sufficient, subsistent social system based on communal land tenure with a sophisticated language, culture, and religion."In 1881 her brother, King Kalakaua, went on an extended journey around the world, leaving the 43-year-old Princess in charge. Although she had no experience governing, she soon had the chance to display her mettle when an epidemic of smallpox erupted, killing many Hawaiians. The source of the disease was Chinese laborers, brought by ship to work in Hawaii's sugar cane fields, the island's economic mainstay. To protect the Hawaiians, Lili'uokalani immediately closed the port, an act that infuriated the wealthy sugar growers."
To this day, most Hawai'ians know the story and hold a grudge against white people in general for effectively stealing the islands from them. Some haoles would argue that they are better off for it, but, just as in Iraq, no one predicted or planned for any real positive outcome until they were on the firmament declaring victory and the deed was done. The goal was to conquer and aquire; any peripheral outcome, such as independence or overall economic health were merely incidental.
We didn't take Iraq to free the Iraqis. Think back to when it all started and ask yourself if it was ever mentioned until later in the campaign. The first point was that Iraq was an imminent threat. When evidence of that began crumble, the second point became that Hussein was a murderous tyrant. Good point, but it had almost nothing to do with the Main Goal, and actually detracted from it. We were supposed to go after terrorists, not invade countries simply to spead freedom.
There are a good handful of murderous tyrants that are more of a threat to us than Hussein was.
Then, it was finally revealed that the plan all along was to free the Iraqis, something they really could have told us at the outset.
I personally do not think we are attempting to spread freedom and democracy so much as secure key land points in hostile areas that are rich in fossil fuel. If democracy spreads, great! But that isn't the goal, and if it doesn't happen, so be it. All the more reason for the use of force.
In Hawai'i's case, it wasn't about independence at all, but simply aquiring a few islands that were very profitable for the US.
Kanaka's independence was taken away by greed. In this era, such an action would be unthinkable, political suicide. Take over an independent government by military force for no other reason than to keep the sugar flowing.
Or is it so unthinkable?
These days, you just have to polish your game, because cameras are everywhere.
And there would be the Hannity's and the O'Reilly's telling you it's for Hawai'i's own good.
When I mention my oppostion to Hawai'i being a US state, I get comments that essentially say they are better off and shouldn't complain.
Go ask the Hawaiians yourself. I dare you.
If you are fortunate enough to find a jolly kanaka, the least you will get is a good beating for asking.
I know this because I lived in Hawai'i for a good part of my life, and WAS fortunate enough to meet and befriend many locals.
The anger runs deep, the memories do not fade so fast even with the youngers, because the elders still tell the tale.
To sum up, taking over other countries for their own good isn't a good enough reason.
Iraq will probably be better off, but will never forget the fact that they were not a threat but still were invaded by the US.
Meanwhile, as we spread democracy abroad, our own
republic might reaching it's apex, it's sunset.
Freedom must be controlled, or there would be chaos, right?
"There ought to be limits to freedom" says Bush.
I say give Hawai'i back rather than merely apologizing for annexing it. She will do just fine on her own, and the tourism revenues would still flow, only to the people who deserve it.
"a substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national character as well as the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair""...the logical consequences of this resolution would be independence."