Debate:Is the American Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands justified?
What definies the right of one country to a portion of land? While I'm prepared to change my mind-- I am rather uneducated on the subject of Hawaii-- I must take the following position: America was wrong to annex Hawaii initially, but at this point there is nothing we can do to amend the wrong; we can't exactly kick them out of the union just because we never should have taken over way back in 1898. We have inherited a Hawaii that our great-grandfathers wrongfully annexed. Even so, Hawaian culture has been integrated with American culture; Americans and Hawaians have become American alike; at this point our occupation of Hawaii is justified. That is to say: Our occupation of Hawaii, though wrongfully attained by our forebears, is now in the best interest of all concerned.
--BenjaminS 23:21, 30 January 2007 (EST)
- I kinda intended for this to be a one-time forum-type-thing. Like everyone gives their opinion once. -Working for Him 22:36, 4 February 2007 (EST)
Great! I will assuredly not give mine again.
--BenjaminS 19:23, 5 February 2007 (EST)
While I lean "yes" (Barack Obama being to me a sufficient justification for annexing Hawaii), it's fun to think about alternate histories of the late 19th century in which Hawaii is never added to the U. S., such as suggested in the article on the Confederate States of America. Even had it not been, Hawaii would surely have remained a gathering spot and melting pot for people from all over the world, as it was in 1961. I've been there -- go now, while you still don't need a passport! I'm also surprised to see that this debate appears to have fizzled out four months ago, before I had even heard of Conservapedia. -- Amyz 18:20, June 1, 2007
I would have to agree with Ben on the point that while perhaps deciding that the original 'occupation' of Hawaii may have been incorrect, it borders on unconstitutional to all of a sudden tell everyone born there as American citizens that they're not in the club anymore and to go back to their monarchy. It would be difficult for them to reestablish a stable governemtn after being apart of the union for a hundred years KTB 19:47, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
I say Yes . What would Hawaii be if we had not invaded/stolen/taken the islands? The IJN would have used Hawaii as a staging point for raids on the American mainland - the people of Hawaii would not have access to the benefits of American life, and even if we had not taken Hawaii, someone else would have taken Hawaii---- PhilipV I Support our Troops! 21:52, 1 January 2009 (EST)
NO!!! We never had any right to Hawaii the Americans were there as missionaries bbut their children turned into greedy businessmen who stole Hawaii from under Queen Liliuokalani's nose! -Working for Him 22:49, 30 January 2007 (EST)
NO - just as the occupation of North America by a bunch of European immigrants and the bloody suppression of the aboriginal inhabitants cannot be justified!
Good point! Every point above could be used on every state in the union! Grinder 21:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
No, but just as we're not going to give back North America, we're not giving back the islands. That's manifest destiny for ya. Czolgolz 10:30, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes And No
Although the US did technically steal Hawai'i from the Hawaiians, we have not oppressed them or their culture, I don't see any real harm. Also due to the US federalistic government, as a state they maintain a high degree of self-government and security from the federal government. And, with time there was a good chance they would have joined the Union anyways. --Snotbowst 14:29, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
The Country was first taken over by a coupe d'etat instigated by Hawaiian businessmen. Although I wish Hawaii remained independent, it was not wholly America's fault. Hawaii asked to be annexed as an U.S. territory. Baronvonbob