31 ms·

> This is such a BS. Hawaii is a full US state. It doesn't matter at all what exactly it is now. No human society has ever been a peaceful, utopian anarchy. Th

by samus 4y ago

> This is such a BS. Hawaii is a full US state. It doesn't matter at all what exactly it is now. No human society has ever been a peaceful, utopian anarchy. That alone doesn't justify colonialism. This is just another case of "history is written by the winners" and a sign that the USA never respected Hawaiian sovereignty at all.

cyberax 4y ago
> This is just another case of "history is written by the winners" and a sign that the USA never respected Hawaiian sovereignty at all. So basically, you're saying that it was OK for the monarch to brutally unite the islands, and prior to that it was OK when warring clans practiced human sacrifice. But having Hawaii as a 50-th state, with its citizens enjoying all the privileges that the US provides, is "colonialism". I guess it's also "colonialism" that Hawaii is a net receiver of the Federal funds. Because that's exactly how colonial empires behave, they pour resources into colonies, right?
- samus 4y ago
  Whether the previous societies were barbaric according to our standards is utterly meaningless because this was not the reason Hawaii was annexed as a territory. Hawaii was annexed because the monarchy continued to not align itself with the interest of businessmen of mostly non-Hawaiian heritage. Also, already back then its strategic importance was recognized. The USA has successfully prevented both the UK and Japan from annexing it. Maybe colonialism is the wrong word, as Hawaii was spared of many of its evils, but it was certainly imperialism. States are not judged based on whether or not they are net receivers of federal funds. Quite the opposite: several states that are net receivers today tried to secede in the past. Finally, most of Hawaii's inhabitants nowadays are not of native Hawaiian origin. After contact, imported diseases decimated the population. Immigration from Asia and the US has done by the rest. Maybe the Hawaiians didn't suffer as much as the Native Americans from colonialism, but I still find the White Man's Burden to be a very poor justification.
  - cyberax 4y ago
    > Whether the previous societies were barbaric according to our standards is utterly meaningless Why is that so? I find this completely inconsistent. It's somehow OK to celebrate a culture that practiced genocidal wars, slavery, and human sacrifices. But it's not OK to celebrate a culture that practiced genocidal wars and slavery. Moreover, you seem to claim the innate superiority by basically saying: "but they didn't know better, they were savages at the time". > States are not judged based on whether or not they are net receivers of federal funds. Quite the opposite: several states that are net receivers today tried to secede in the past. Colonialism assumed that the colonies send resources back to the metropolis country. As you can see, this is not happening at all with Hawaii.
    - samus 4y ago
      > Why is that so? I provided the reasoning in the rest of that paragraph. It's pointless to judge the previous culture on those merits since it was not overthrown because of them. Christianity and "civilization" were not introduced to benefit the Hawaiians, but to control them. And similarly to how our culture cherry-picked from the cultures that came before, so should also the Hawaiians be able to retain elements of their culture and their heritage. > Colonialism assumed that the colonies send resources back to the metropolis country. As you can see, this is not happening at all with Hawaii. Actually, Hawaii was sending resources to the mainland US back then. Most importantly, sugar. However, in the US market Hawaii had trouble competing with other exporters because of tariffs. Already before annexation, Hawaii's business men (mostly of non-native or mixed origin) forced the kingdom to lease territory to the US in exchange for lower tariffs. Annexation was a definite solution for that problem. And nowadays it is still crucial to protect the interests of the USA in the Pacific.
      - cyberax 4y ago
        > Christianity and "civilization" were not introduced to benefit the Hawaiians, but to control them. King Kamehameha was not Christian. > And similarly to how our culture cherry-picked from the cultures that came before, so should also the Hawaiians be able to retain elements of their culture and their heritage. Nope. This is not what was happening. Protestors basically invented nonsense about Mauna Kea being the most sacred something, even though there was no evidence that it was anything but utilitarian. There were no cultural sites at the top of the mountain, but there were sites of several stone-age quarries. > Actually, Hawaii was sending resources to the mainland US back then. In exchange for goods and money, just like any other trading country.

by samus 4y ago

cyberax 4y ago

> This is just another case of "history is written by the winners" and a sign that the USA never respected Hawaiian sovereignty at all. So basically, you're saying that it was OK for the monarch to brutally unite the islands, and prior to that it was OK when warring clans practiced human sacrifice. But having Hawaii as a 50-th state, with its citizens enjoying all the privileges that the US provides, is "colonialism". I guess it's also "colonialism" that Hawaii is a net receiver of the Federal funds. Because that's exactly how colonial empires behave, they pour resources into colonies, right?

samus 4y ago
Whether the previous societies were barbaric according to our standards is utterly meaningless because this was not the reason Hawaii was annexed as a territory. Hawaii was annexed because the monarchy continued to not align itself with the interest of businessmen of mostly non-Hawaiian heritage. Also, already back then its strategic importance was recognized. The USA has successfully prevented both the UK and Japan from annexing it. Maybe colonialism is the wrong word, as Hawaii was spared of many of its evils, but it was certainly imperialism. States are not judged based on whether or not they are net receivers of federal funds. Quite the opposite: several states that are net receivers today tried to secede in the past. Finally, most of Hawaii's inhabitants nowadays are not of native Hawaiian origin. After contact, imported diseases decimated the population. Immigration from Asia and the US has done by the rest. Maybe the Hawaiians didn't suffer as much as the Native Americans from colonialism, but I still find the White Man's Burden to be a very poor justification.
- cyberax 4y ago
  > Whether the previous societies were barbaric according to our standards is utterly meaningless Why is that so? I find this completely inconsistent. It's somehow OK to celebrate a culture that practiced genocidal wars, slavery, and human sacrifices. But it's not OK to celebrate a culture that practiced genocidal wars and slavery. Moreover, you seem to claim the innate superiority by basically saying: "but they didn't know better, they were savages at the time". > States are not judged based on whether or not they are net receivers of federal funds. Quite the opposite: several states that are net receivers today tried to secede in the past. Colonialism assumed that the colonies send resources back to the metropolis country. As you can see, this is not happening at all with Hawaii.
  - samus 4y ago
    > Why is that so? I provided the reasoning in the rest of that paragraph. It's pointless to judge the previous culture on those merits since it was not overthrown because of them. Christianity and "civilization" were not introduced to benefit the Hawaiians, but to control them. And similarly to how our culture cherry-picked from the cultures that came before, so should also the Hawaiians be able to retain elements of their culture and their heritage. > Colonialism assumed that the colonies send resources back to the metropolis country. As you can see, this is not happening at all with Hawaii. Actually, Hawaii was sending resources to the mainland US back then. Most importantly, sugar. However, in the US market Hawaii had trouble competing with other exporters because of tariffs. Already before annexation, Hawaii's business men (mostly of non-native or mixed origin) forced the kingdom to lease territory to the US in exchange for lower tariffs. Annexation was a definite solution for that problem. And nowadays it is still crucial to protect the interests of the USA in the Pacific.
    - cyberax 4y ago
      > Christianity and "civilization" were not introduced to benefit the Hawaiians, but to control them. King Kamehameha was not Christian. > And similarly to how our culture cherry-picked from the cultures that came before, so should also the Hawaiians be able to retain elements of their culture and their heritage. Nope. This is not what was happening. Protestors basically invented nonsense about Mauna Kea being the most sacred something, even though there was no evidence that it was anything but utilitarian. There were no cultural sites at the top of the mountain, but there were sites of several stone-age quarries. > Actually, Hawaii was sending resources to the mainland US back then. In exchange for goods and money, just like any other trading country.