Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Judi Lynn

(160,218 posts)
Tue Jan 17, 2012, 05:25 AM Jan 2012

Jan. 17, 1893 | Hawaiian Monarchy Overthrown by America-Backed Businessmen

January 17, 2012, 4:01 am
Jan. 17, 1893 | Hawaiian Monarchy Overthrown by America-Backed Businessmen
By THE LEARNING NETWORK

On Jan. 17, 1893, Hawaii’s monarchy was overthrown when a group of businessmen and sugar planters forced Queen Liliuokalani to abdicate. The coup led to the dissolving of the Kingdom of Hawaii two years later, its annexation as a U.S. territory and eventual admission as the 50th state in the union.

The first European contact with Hawaii was made in 1778 by Capt. James Cook. In the 19th century, traders and missionaries came to the islands from Europe and the United States. They often opposed the Hawaiian monarchy, favoring instead a British-style constitutional monarchy where the monarch held little power.

In 1874, David Kalakaua became king and sought to reduce the power of the white Missionary Party (later Reform Party) in the government. In 1887, angered by King Kalakaua’s extravagant spending and his attempts to dilute their power, a small group of Missionary Party members, known as the Hawaiian League, struck back against the king.

Led by Lorrin A. Thurston and Sanford B. Dole, the Hawaiian League drafted a new constitution that reduced the power of the king and increased the power of the cabinet and Legislature. It also extended voting rights to wealthy noncitizens, while excluding Asians and restricting access for native Hawaiians through land-owning and literacy provisions. Backed by a militia, the group used the threat of violence to force King Kalakaua to sign the constitution, which became known as the Bayonet Constitution.

More:
http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/jan-17-1893-hawaiian-monarchy-overthrown-by-america-backed-businessmen/?ref=education

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Jan. 17, 1893 | Hawaiian Monarchy Overthrown by America-Backed Businessmen (Original Post) Judi Lynn Jan 2012 OP
What's a little empire building amongst friends. Hell Hath No Fury Jan 2012 #1
Gangsters for capitalism. marmar Jan 2012 #2
Clinton apologized for that back in 1993.... xocet Jan 2012 #3
Thanks, good read. n/t zeos3 Jan 2012 #4
Thank you Judi Lynn... PoiBoy Jan 2012 #5
K & R ellisonz Jan 2012 #6
 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
1. What's a little empire building amongst friends.
Tue Jan 17, 2012, 12:12 PM
Jan 2012

"...businessmen and sugar planters..."

Looks like not much has changed -- we're still doing the same shit, just different industries.

xocet

(3,870 posts)
3. Clinton apologized for that back in 1993....
Tue Jan 17, 2012, 09:38 PM
Jan 2012

Not that that changes anything.

Here is an interesting article:

UN Report: Annexation could be declared invalid
Clinton's 1993 apology is seen as casting new light on the 1897 treaty
Native Hawaiians say being re-listed as a colony would give an opportunity to choose


Honolulu Star-Bulletin
Tuesday, August 11, 1998

By Pat Omandam


Hawaii's annexation by the United States could be declared invalid, according to a United Nations report.

The report said the situation of native Hawaiians now takes on a "special complexion" because of, among other reasons, President Clinton's November 1993 Apology Resolution to native Hawaiians.

The study recommends Hawaii be returned to a U.N. List of Non-Self Governing Territories - a list of indigenous peoples colonized by another country. Such action could make Hawaii eligible for decolonization as well as a U.N.-sponsored plebiscite.

The 73-page unedited final report, submitted after nine years of reviewing treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements between nations and indigenous peoples, was filed July 30 in Geneva.

...

http://archives.starbulletin.com/98/08/11/news/index.html


I am a bit surprised that the tea bagger subclass: birthers never formulated a strategy to have the annexation declared invalid. Then they possibly could argue that the "certificate of live birth" is not validly from the USA. Then....

I think it would be amusing to see them try this. To do so, they would have to acknowledge an act of Clinton's presidency as being good, to acknowledge the worth of some form of international law and, finally, acknowledge the role in the world of the UN. What a price that would be!

The question is who or what do they hate more:

A) Barack Obama

or

B) Bill Clinton, International Law and the United Nations ?
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Jan. 17, 1893 »