No, we’re calling it imperialism.
Perhaps read my entire post? I said precisely the opposite. Yes, they were nations. They just weren’t nations worth doing anything with as far as the American government was concerned. Not even ruling over.
If your definition of imperialism is “going to a place, killing the people who are there, and taking their land,” then you have basically declared the whole of human history to be ‘imperialism’ and you have completely devalued the term.
It seems like a lot to me, especially in response to this post:
Okay, but the responses to DrDeth’s comment of “That’s not generally considered Imperialism or Colony building.” did not distinguish between the two.
If you want to be specific, then, the wave of European imperialism was via colonialism. The US mostly used other means. Nothing wrong with imperialism by itself–the straight purchase of Alaska from Russia was also imperialism.
More on the grabbing of Hawaii:
**When King Kalakaua died in 1891, his sister Lili’uokalani succeeded him, and members of the native population persuaded the new queen to draft a new constitution in an attempt to restore native rights and powers. The move was countered by the Committee on Annexation, a small group of white businessmen and politicians who felt that annexation by the United States, the major importer of Hawaiian agricultural products, would be beneficial for the economy of Hawaii. Supported by John Stevens, the U.S. Minister to Hawaii, and a contingent of Marines from the warship, U.S.S. Boston, the Committee on Annexation overthrew Queen Lili’uokalani in a bloodless coup on January 17, 1893 and established a revolutionary regime.
Without permission from the U.S. State Department, Minister Stevens then recognized the new government and proclaimed Hawaii a U.S. protectorate. The Committee immediately proclaimed itself to be the Provisional Government. President Benjamin Harrison signed a treaty of annexation with the new government, but before the Senate could ratify it, Grover Cleveland replaced Harrison as president and subsequently withdrew the treaty.
Shortly into his presidency, Cleveland appointed James Blount as a special investigator to investigate the events in the Hawaiian Islands. Blount found that Minister Stevens had acted improperly and ordered that the American flag be lowered from Hawaiian government buildings. He also ordered that Queen Lili’uokalani be restored to power, but Sanford Dole, the president of the Provisional Government of Hawaii, refused to turn over power. Dole successfully argued that the United States had no right to interfere in the internal affairs of Hawaii. The Provisional Government then proclaimed Hawaii a republic in 1894, and soon the Republic of Hawaii was officially recognized by the United States.
In March of 1897, William McKinley was inaugurated as President of the United States. McKinley was in favor of annexation, and the change in leadership was soon felt. On June 16, 1897, McKinley and three representatives of the government of the Republic of Hawaii --Lorrin Thurston, Francis Hatch, and William Kinney-- signed a treaty of annexation. President McKinley then submitted the treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification.
The overthrow of Lili’uokalani and imposition of the Republic of Hawaii was contrary to the will of the native Hawaiians. Native Hawaiians staged mass protest rallies and formed two gender-designated groups to protest the overthrow and prevent annexation. One was the Hui Hawaii Aloha Aina, loosely translated as the Hawaiian Patriotic League, and the other was its female counterpart, the Hui Hawaii Aloha Aina o Na Wahine. On January 5, 1895, the protests took the form of an armed attempt to derail the annexation but the armed revolt was suppressed by forces of the Republic. The leaders of the revolt were imprisoned along with Queen Lili’uokalani who was jailed for failing to put down the revolt. **
Again, I’m glad the US got Hawaii and not one of the other powers, but it was a shady business all around.
Yes, but I doubt if you were alive in 1898.
If you had read the thread I posted: "The US Marines didn’t fire a shot* and were there just to prevent violence. The coup d’état was not by "white businessmen " but by Queen Liliʻuokalani , who unilaterally abrogated the Constitution, going for a return to almost absolute Monarchy, stealing property based on race, and a return to the Taboo system. Not a single native so much as raised a hand to prevent the Committee of Safety from overthrowing the Queen, in fact most politically aware natives were horrified by her abrogation and wanted nothing to do with a return to the Taboo system, a nigh-Absolute Monarchy and property & voting rights based upon race.
And you say " white businessmen" which is pretty racist, since Lorrin A. Thurston** was born in the Islands of missionaries also born there. He was 3rd gen, but if Queen Liliʻuokalani had had her way, he would have had no rights at all, and his property could be confiscated purely on the basis of race.
*162 sailors and Marines came ashore well-armed but under orders of neutrality. The sailors and Marines did not enter the Palace grounds or take over any buildings, and never fired a shot.
** His father was speaker of the house of representatives of the Kingdom of Hawaii.
He was also fluent in the Hawaiian language and had the Hawaiian nickname Kakina. So, yeah, maybe he was “white” but he was born there, his father was born there and was a well loved political leader and one of his grandparents was born there."
So, Lorrin A. Thurston was 3rd gen Hawaiian. Not American. Which you could have found by reading the wiki page you linked to.
And, it was *Queen Liliʻuokalani *who illegally abrogated the Constitution, not the other way around.
Sure, 100 year later they are trying to change history and whitewash the Queen, but she was the villain here.
*imperialism
[im-peer-ee-uh-liz-uh m]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
2.
advocacy of imperial or sovereign interests over the interests of the dependent states.
3.
imperial government; rule by an emperor or empress.
4.
an imperial system of government.
*
So 1. Maybe, if you count the native American tribes as “foreign countries”, but the USA did not make a practice of “acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies”
-
This is where the USA does well- it never put the welfare of the Original 13 States over the acquired area, in fact as soon as possible the USA made those areas full states with full rights.
-
Nope.
-
Nope.
Yes, the Overseas Departments are considered integral parts of France itself, full citizenship, full representation, but for the longest time were under special provisions. More recently something similar happened to some of the remaining Netherlands Antilles.
And that figure is very high; per:
the most expensive “war” was “3 military expeditions to stop the Sioux massacres of 1863-1860 (they mean 1890 as clarifed later), at a cost of $10,000,000” so that’s 10MM over 30 years.
Per wiki the human cost was "57 years between 1789 and 1846, which killed 19,000 whites and about 30,000 Indians " that’s “only” 1000 persons a year, hell about as many people kill themselves EACH YEAR in the USA as died *in the entire series *of Indian “Wars”.
As many as 1000 people a year die accidentally as a result of autoerotic suffocation.
Come on now: that 1k a year needs to be adjusted to reflect population increase.
The US population is now about 18 times higher than in 1846, and 78 times higher than in 1789.
That means the present equivalent would more than 18,000 dead in battle and massacre per year.
Still less than half what we lose to suicide.
It was the white businessmen who were racist, and the spin you are sadly trying to put on the situation is simply false.
The American tribes were considered nations. The US government negotiated treaties with them; same as with other foreign nations. (Whether the US upheld the treaties initially is another story). As the come-back-kids, the tribes have had a fair amount of success in getting enforcement of some of the 374 treaties going back a century of more.
16,899 in our worst year in Viet Nam.
I think one of the worse cases of imperialism was in Australia. What right did Great Britain have to suddenly dump all their prisoners there and eventually take over the whole territory of Australia and Tanzania? Granted the natives there were just small tribes with no national governments so to speak but still, did GB have the right to just drop in and set up shop?
And as an added bonus, the only state in South America that is a member of NATO.
Sort of. The terms of the North Atlantic Treaty specify where an attack must occur in order to be covered under its terms. The attack must occur in Europe, North America, Turkey, or on an island controlled by one of the signatories and located in the Atlantic Ocean north of the Tropic of Cancer. (It also used to include Algeria when that was part of France.) So if an attack was made against Hawaii or French Guiana, NATO wouldn’t be obligated to respond.
Out of curiosity, do you know why they’re called “overseas regions” at all? Hawaii is just a state, not an “overseas state” or anything. It’s clear that overseas regions do have full rights, so I find it strange that they have a distinct name at all.
Uh, its called Tasmania, not Tanzania. Yes the colonisation of Australia was particular noxious since Britain declared it Terra Nullius (empty land) completely ignoring the Aboriginal inhabitants.
Aboriginals were not considered citizens of Australia until 1967, and were regulated under Flora and Fauna Law. In Tasmania the aboriginal population was completely eliminated.
This is in stark contrast to New Zealand where the UK recognised that the Maoris had a government structure and signed the Treaty of Waitangi with them:
It was a euphemism coined in the mid-1930s, when the adjectives “colonial” and “possession” started getting more and more bad press.