08-01-2015, 04:47 AM
I think few who know the history of the U.S. and of European conquest/colonization of other lands can overlook the depredation that native populations have endured at the hands of expansionists. The Hawaiian nation surely has legitimate unresolved grievances.
However, many believe that the overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy in particular was largely due to the concerns of the powerful plantation captains like Dole, Thurston etc. for their economic interests. Thurston Twigg-Smith (in his book Does The Truth Matter) asserted that Kalakaua's desire to emulate English royalty with all of it's ostentatious and expensive paraphernalia had placed the nation in a precarious position. The monarchy's profligate spending resulted in deep debt and in the eyes of the plantation interests made the King vulnerable to the influence of foreign powers such as Japan and Russia. After Kalakaua's death, Liliuokalani's effort to reject the "bayonet constitution" and reestablish the monarchy was perceived to be a threat by these same actors who were determined to protect their interests. It's interesting that President Grover Cleveland, whom I believe was elected during or shortly after the "annexation" of Hawaii was regarded as an "anti-imperialist" and ruled that the Hawaiian monarchy should be reinstated. The reinstatement of course was never consummated, and Cleveland's successor McKinley, who probably recognized the strategic and economic value of the territory, embraced the annexation.
The strategic location of Hawaii nei makes it a very interesting target for the Pacific rim powers and I would argue that Hawaii would inevitably have been taken by one of these others if the U.S. hadn't established control over the island territory and eventually made it a state. Most likely Japan, or Russia (the latter built a fort on Kauai which still stands). The end result is perhaps mixed for Hawaiians who have been largely deprived of economic justice and lands. However, many realize that quality of life in a monarchy depends on the quality of the monarch of the moment, and that properly formulated representative government in which leadership can be rejected or replaced by voters is generally a better option.
However, many believe that the overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy in particular was largely due to the concerns of the powerful plantation captains like Dole, Thurston etc. for their economic interests. Thurston Twigg-Smith (in his book Does The Truth Matter) asserted that Kalakaua's desire to emulate English royalty with all of it's ostentatious and expensive paraphernalia had placed the nation in a precarious position. The monarchy's profligate spending resulted in deep debt and in the eyes of the plantation interests made the King vulnerable to the influence of foreign powers such as Japan and Russia. After Kalakaua's death, Liliuokalani's effort to reject the "bayonet constitution" and reestablish the monarchy was perceived to be a threat by these same actors who were determined to protect their interests. It's interesting that President Grover Cleveland, whom I believe was elected during or shortly after the "annexation" of Hawaii was regarded as an "anti-imperialist" and ruled that the Hawaiian monarchy should be reinstated. The reinstatement of course was never consummated, and Cleveland's successor McKinley, who probably recognized the strategic and economic value of the territory, embraced the annexation.
The strategic location of Hawaii nei makes it a very interesting target for the Pacific rim powers and I would argue that Hawaii would inevitably have been taken by one of these others if the U.S. hadn't established control over the island territory and eventually made it a state. Most likely Japan, or Russia (the latter built a fort on Kauai which still stands). The end result is perhaps mixed for Hawaiians who have been largely deprived of economic justice and lands. However, many realize that quality of life in a monarchy depends on the quality of the monarch of the moment, and that properly formulated representative government in which leadership can be rejected or replaced by voters is generally a better option.