(DGP) Chapter 7: Hawaii’s Last Queen on American Annexation

Annex: (1) to add to something earlier, larger, or more important, (2) to incorporate (a country or other territory) within the domain of a state, (3) to obtain or take for oneself

-Merriam-Webster

In January 1893, a group of Americans and Europeans established a “Committee of Safety” whose intention was to overthrow the kingdom of Hawaii and achieve American annexation. Why? Because they were concerned for the safety and property of American citizens. So the US Marines and Navy from ships in the Honolulu Harbor went to shore claiming to be neutral and be there only to prevent possible violence. However, the very presence of those US military forces prevented the Kingdom of Hawaii from any chance of defending themselves physically or politically.

Queen Lili’uokalani (the last Queen of Hawaii) temporarily gave up her power to the US military and government, thinking that the political rights would eventually be restore to the Hawaiians. Although the queen seemingly had no choice but to relinquish her crown, she could have resisted the take over with what little enforcements they had. I wonder though if she really thought after discussion that the US would give her back the title and power of ruler of Hawaii or it was wishful thinking. The US was clearly the stronger power, so it seems ridiculous that they, along with the Europeans, felt threatened by Hawaii.

In her plea to the US government, the queen describes how the more recent Hawaiian natives are less “savage” and much more influenced by Christianity and foreign missionaries. Her plan is to show the US that the Hawaiians have pretty much gone along with whatever was forced on them, sadly giving up many native religious traditions to follow new influences. When she asks, “Is the American Republic of the States to degenerate, and become a colonizer and land-grabber?” (p 213) she draws upon the savageness of the US, making them seem like the monster. Before Hawaii, the US had been colonizing and taking land from other territories (i.e. Native Americans) but instead of pointing out those negative aspects, the queen gives the US an opportunity to look good and say no…

She also focuses on nationalism and Christianity, two things America was well known for: “Quite as warmly as you love your country, they love theirs… The people to whom your fathers told of the living God […] are crying aloud to Him in their time of trouble; and He will keep His promise, and will listen to the voices of His Hawaiian children lamenting for their homes” (p 213). This statement shows the intelligence and elegance of the queen, and her cunning to fight the US with its own motto! She is arguing that the US has taught the Hawaiian people to be civil, spreading Christianity and the knowledge that God will help those in need. Her plea is honest, intellectual, rational, and cunning- it is very sad that nothing came of it.

Chapter 17: Atlantic Revolutions and Their Echoes

Although the first to spark a series of revolutions, the American Revolution was different because of reason, “it originated in an effort t preserve the existing liberties of the colonies rather than to create new ones” (p 502). Nothing about the word ‘revolution’ sounds conservative. I had always thought of the American Revolution as a radical demand for freedom, with the idea that the colonies were deeply dependent on Britain but ultimately oppressed and confined by its policies from across the pond. I never considered the fact that the colonies were fairly self-sufficient and essentially self-governed although regulated from across the world. So the idea that the American Revolution was actually a conservative act was new to me.

Democracy came easy and naturally for the Unites States, but that is not true of other nations. I think the US sometimes tries to force democracy on other nations, like Iraq for example. The war in Iraq was not a revolution per say, but it sort of looked like one. Of course, the Bush administration started the war on the false idea that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction. Anyway... it was like America came in, thinking that Iraqi people wanted freedom and revolution, and took out the leader. However, no one really planned for what to do after that. It was not the American colonies, where democracy was already developing before liberation from Britain. Iraq was not used to democracy, it was not like the American Revolution, where we take away Britain (Saddam Hussein) and the colonies (Iraq) continues to govern themselves… it was total chaos. “ ‘Liberty,’ noted Simon Bolivar, ‘is a succulent morsel, but one difficult to digest” (p 501). Freedom from Saddam Hussein was probably a good thing overall, however after a dictatorship freedom came through Iraq like a tornado stirring up a lot of wild emotions and actions.

It is so interesting to read about the succession of revolutions. It makes the world, which is so big and spacious, seems more tightly connected. The Declaration of Independence gave people the ‘right to revolution’ and started a domino affect of revolts against governments across the world. Although America was founded on this idea that people have a right to revolution, I wonder what would happen if something like a revolution happened today. Now that the country is established, and has a number of imperfections, would citizens be allowed to rise up and make a change? Not necessarily break free from government, but for reform- to change the way the government is run. Or if a revolution started in another country, would it have the same affect as the American Revolution? There is certainly room for change in many countries today, but do people have the same power they had in the late 1700s to spark a transformation?

Chapter 18: Revolutions of Industry

In the intro of part 5 and the discussion of Eurocentrism, it is interesting to learn that Europe did become the hub of activity in the world at that time. I never even thought about the fact that the “far east” and “middle east” can only be considered that when compared (in location) to Europe. This sentence also stuck out to me: “Even though the European moment operated on a genuinely global scale, Western people have enjoyed their worldwide primacy for at most two centuries” (p 493). The people have enjoyed their time on top, not competed for it, worked for it, sacrificed for it, but enjoyed it. Perhaps this attitude is why, in general, the western world thinks so highly of themselves. It’s as if everything was handed to them, and in a way it kind of was.

Chapter 18 talks about how the industrial revolution just sort of happened to start in Europe. Europe was not “ahead of the game,” but rather even with Asia and other areas economically speaking. Once the revolution started, of course Europeans kicked into high gear and start pumping out machinery, steam engines, all kinds of things to give them the upper hand in the industrial world. But it started out relatively even. Britain is where it all began, if we were to pin point a country. The “many small and highly competitive states [of Europe], […] arguably provided an ‘insurance against economical and technological stagnation” (p 530) and that competition is what drove industrial development. Britain, in comparison to the geographical size of China, the Ottoman Empire, and Mughal Empire (which were less successful in terms of industrial revolution), is small. Did the industrial revolution start because here because there was a very large population competing in a relatively small vicinity for efficient and marketable commerce?

I also thought how interesting it was that with the increase of industry came to increased separation of class in Europe. It makes sense I suppose, but when does it stop? Because the world is still ruled by industry, it always has been, but I mean the highly competitive, dog-eat-dog, steal ideas or patents from your best friend industry. And economic separation is as evident as ever, within one country AND on a country-to-country basis. Look at technology, the iPad. Really? Do people really need portable touch screen computers? No wonder people don’t care about HUMAN issues, like human trafficking, global warming that is destroying the one planet we can live on... They are too busy googling Britney Spears’ latest hair cut, or Pat Roberson’s newest take on why an earthquake hit Haiti. And only people from certain social classes, or from certain countries will be able to buy something like this.

My grandmother is 94 years old and I like talking to her about her life. I think it was 2 years ago now that I showed her my iPod. She looked at me, laughed, and said, “Where does the music come from?” I think about all the things she has seen in her lifetime, and it blows my mind- I can only imagine what its like for her! The technological advances in my lifetime alone are astonishing and overwhelming. Honestly, technology and the drive for the next new thing kind of scare me. You can genetically engineer your kid to be whatever you want, you can have a portable touch screen computer, I don’t even know what else! I want a career in healthcare, and yes technology has made it possible to save so many lives and so many wonderful things. But now it is creating so many moral issues and there is a real concern that people could start to “play God.” Technology stressed me out; it is good and bad all at once.

Back to the reading, I have just one last thought to discuss. In the section about middle class, one seemingly innocent yet slightly offensive phrase could easily have gone unnoticed, much like its subject did in history at this time: “wives, though clearly subordinate, worked productively alongside their husbands” (p537). The definition of subordinate: lower than somebody in rank or status, secondary in importance. After briefly discussing the home-maker role of the women in middle class, this phrase is thrown in there like “Oh, by the way, women worked just like men (in addition to many duties in the home) but they are female, so who cares.” While I cannot take this idea personally, it is still so discouraging that women were thought so little of. Here it is saying they had many responsibilities at home, and then also worked right beside their husbands- meaning they are actually doing more work than the men (!!), and getting no credit, no reward, no recognition from their family, government, or society (at that time).

Chapter 16: Science and Religion

The introduction to Chapter 16, talking about teaching religion in schools today caught my attention. While I do believe in the separation of church and state, I think sometimes people are too sensitive about the subject of Christianity in school. What I mean is, the Europeans who came over to North America were expanding and colonizing with Christianity in mind, a driving force even. So today, Christianity should be discussed when learning about the formation of America. Do not preach Christianity, teach Christianity. We learn about many religions in school why shouldn’t we learn that Christian missionaries played a huge role in the expansion of America?

I was talking with some friends over the weekend about religion. I don’t know why but I have remembered Martin Luther and his 95 Theses in 1517 since the first time I read about it back in 7^th grade. I admire the fact that he challenged something he didn’t believe in, especially because I am Catholic and am glad some one called them out on their wildly inappropriate abuse of power and corruption. I think it is interesting that his questioning then evolved into a whole separate religion. And this is where our friendly discussion began.

Do people believe in God or religion? I identify with the Catholic religion, but at the same time I think religion is so weird. Like Martin Luther, some one essentially made up each religion. Luther protested Catholicism, and this Protestantism was born. It is right there in the name, the religion is based on Catholicism but modified after questions, protests arose. It is some one’s interpretation of the bible, or other primary sources. But why does that determine what I believe in? Do I have to believe in some one’s interpretation? Or can I have my own? I think if people believe in God, they should believe in God and not necessarily a church or religion- until they learn more about it. This is all hard for me to articulate, I don’t know if having questions makes me “un-Catholic” or what. All I know is that I believe in God, I was baptized Catholic as a child, but I do not believe in everything mandated by Catholicism. For example, in the Bible it is said that faith the size of a mustard seed defines a relationship with God and that to get into Heaven all you have to do is have that faith. I don’t believe in purgatory, because if you believe in God, you will go to Heaven. People talk about murderers on death row and how they claim they believe in God right before they die so they will go to Heaven. That is not for us to judge, if they do then great. But if they believe in a desire for salvation and not truly in God, that is between him and God. 

“Throughout the modern era, people solidly rooted in Confucianism, Buddhist, Hindu, or Islamic traditions proved far more resistant to the Christian message than those who practiced more localized, small-scale, orally based polytheistic religions” (p 468).  It makes sense that orally based religions were not as strongly upheld, however it is tragic that so many traditions were lost. Europeans and Christianity totally overpowered the natives and native cultures. Ever since those early days, it seems like Europeans and new Americans have taken that to heart and continue to overwhelm cultures and religions that are different. One small positive is that some native traditions were sometimes absorbed into Christianity in that area: “In such ways did Christianity take root in the new cultural environments of Spanish American, but it was distinctly Andean or Mexican Christianity, not merely a copy of the Spanish version” (p 470). Whether it was an attempt to resist Christianity or an honest infusion of new beliefs with old ones, each culture contributed some customs their new Christian life.

Sometimes I wonder where each religion came from, because so many of them have strong similarities that it almost seems like one religion was morphed into a unique sect based on the culture in which it developed. Maybe that is my own naïve, please-everybody delusion but if more people realized the similarities don’t you think we could reduce the conflict and discrimination (at least between religions).  I love science and believe science and religion can be related, but I am stumped when it comes to arguing for one over the other and generally try to avoid that discussion at all costs!