08-25-2015, 08:33 AM
No it couldn't. What the Kingdom is trying to do is directly related to what the US/State of Hawaii did. In the original argument what the US did had nothing to do with Hawaii's past, but he was using it as his argument for what the US did.
Again the original argument was that what the US did to Hawaii was wrong and immoral(granted, morals are relative but I think we can agree that there are somethings that almost every culture would deem immoral). He then presented the fact that Hawaii wouldn't have even been united had it not been for the US and that Hawaiians themselves had committed atrocities against themselves to get to that point. But those instances have nothing to do with whether what the US did was right or legal for that matter. If the US had taken over because of some atrocities, it would have been relevant. But that is not why they took over.
I'm just getting annoyed with all the invalid arguments for why the US take over was just. "You're better off" "Kamehameha did the same thing but in a more savage way." "You'd be taken over by China or Russia if not." None of those are valid arguments and yet they keep getting used over and over again.