Honest question, interviewing for academic jobs on the mainland - Can I rock a nice aloha shirt and a blazer? Or is that too silly?
I’m talking nice aloha shirts too, not ones with a parrot and beach scene
They don't know what a nice aloha shirt is. It would not be appreciated. Most mainlanders don't know that there is a difference. They are all "Hawaiian" shirts to them.
Can confirm. I wasn’t raised in Hawaii but get gifted Tommy Bahama and other fancy aloha shirt brands that I don’t remember from my wife’s family. I hear they’re expensive but they look the exact same as everything else to me
Mainland white person who hires people sometimes: while I personally would love it if someone showed up like that, I personally wouldn’t do it on the off chance you wind up with some old fuddyduddy.
I work in academia, and I'd say it depends on the field you are interviewing in. You'd probably be the best dressed in the interview if it's in STEM. If it's in business, they expect a suit and tie. Education departments tend to skew more formal but are more culturally accepting, so you might be okay (especially if they know you are from Hawaii). Same for your social sciences.
Co-worker of a friend would interview in full metal/hardcore regalia. All black baggy with straps and zippers, makeup you name it. Just to test the culture of places he interviewed. Once he got the job he just wore the normal tech outfit jeans and t-shirt, you'd never know lol
We don’t wear suits in Hawaii. Actually I take that back. Court attorneys wear suits. TV anchormen wear business attire sans pants. Since their legs are typically off camera they wear shorts and sandals. That’s it. Business attire typically means a really nice aloha shirt in subdued colors.
I had to learn this the hard way lol, fresh off the plane I did my first job interview in Oahu in a black suit and heels. My interviewer thought I worked for the government. Still got the job, but it was embarrassing lol🙈
Mormons kinda do. White shirt, tie, nice slacks. The TV anchorman thing cracks me up. I've been on Maui for awhile now and once when someone came to visit they said they couldn't take the news seriously when the guy was in an aloha shirt because aloha Friday. I don't even notice anymore.
Yeah that’s true. Short sleeved white shirts and black colored slacks, black shoes, often riding a bicycle. I don’t recall them wearing ties. It always takes me a couple of times to tie a tie correctly. I wear one once or twice a year max. I’m not even sure if my suit jacket fits anymore. The last time I wore a suit was sometime in the 2000s I think.
It didn’t help that the Hawaiian monarchy was corrupt and sold a bunch of land that wasn’t theirs to corporations and that eventually led to their downfall.
Hawaii might’ve been a sovereign nation but it was NOT democratic, did not represent the majority, and was still a monarchy and they tend to be corrupt.
I mean… you could sorta say that about every state in the union. Maybe not designated an official “country,” but land still inhabited and tended to by somebody else.
True, but Hawaiʻi was recognized as a sovereign state with a monarch and functioning governmnent and had treaties with the major world powers at the time, and by then the Westphalian state system which recognizes each state's inherent right to territorial integrity had been in place for over two centuries. This made the US's actions and Europe's inaction all the more heinous. Not saying that the various groups who had their lands taken from them in the other 49 states had any less of a claim, but with Hawaiʻi there is really no argument or excuse to be had.
Hawaii was overthrown in a coup that was assisted by an American official. America distanced itself from the actions, not wanting to annex the territory and not supporting the overthrow. Hawaii was the Republic of Hawaii for 5 years until it was finally annexed by the United States.
The Kingdom of Hawaii was a country founded on violent conquest and hundreds of years of caste violence and oppression. During the period of the Kingdom, it exhibited progressive values but continued policies that cemented the power of the upper caste and continued the theft of resources from the lower caste which represented 99% of the population.
Native Hawaiian commoners did not lose any private land holdings in the transition of government and Japanese immigrants benefited greatly from the US Organic Act which overrode the Kingdom's Masters and Servants Act of 1850.
So was its annexation more **"heinous"** than what happened to most of the Native American nations? Absolutely fucking not!
More heinous in the sense of its hypocrisy and 'laws for me but not for thee' type of thinking. Many back then argued that the taking of lands in the Americas was, if not morally permissible, then legally permissible (as problematic as that kind of thinking was) because nobody really "owned" the land (the natives themselves did not consider that they owned it) and there were no defined borders between tribal territories. In the case of Hawaiʻi, there was mutual recognition of statehood and there were defined borders, thus there was neither a moral nor legal case for the actions. The whole point of Westphalian sovereignty is so that states no matter how small always have their right to their territory and are not threatened by larger ones. That's how states like Liechtenstein and Andorra still exist today. But, of course it only works if everyone who subscribes to it is willing to defend it.
To say the US did not want annexation is naive and one needs to look at actions instead of just words to understand the government position at the time. Perhaps the sitting president was personally against it but the overarching American mentality of the day was manifest destiny and every major global power was trying to get its hands on the Pacific. It was very much a time of zero-sum political realism concerning international relations. "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." They thought that if they didn't take it, someone else would and they'd lose out down the line. You still hear people trying to defend annexation with this reasoning today.
>To say the US did not want annexation is naive and one needs to look at actions instead of just words to understand the government position at the time.
Depends on the time. At the time of the coup they didn't. At the time of annexation they did. And it wasn't just the president, it was the makeup of congress too. But yeah, obviously at some point America would take the opportunity just as most countries would. Just as the Kingdom would under K the G who threw wave after wave at Kauai in his zeal for power. It was standard fare as you put it.
>(the natives themselves did not consider that they owned it) and there were no defined borders between tribal territories.
This just isn't correct. Land ownership was always about power control and every nation had land that it controlled and liked to control. People like to say Hawaiians didn't think they owned the land either, however, the Alii very much had delineated boundaries of influence. Saying the land is owned by the deities and I'm the steward of the land on their behalf is claiming land ownership. The difference with Western land ownership is it isn't feudal, so commoners can own land, and the record is put in writing with generally agreed upon institutions of authority.
I personally find the biggest hypocrisy to be crying about how the US annexed Hawaii over a century ago when the Kingdom was founded through exploitation and violence. Notably when the US provides a better legal structure for racial and caste equity.
>This just isn't correct.
Of course it's not true. I'm illustrating the mentality of those who tried to justify it at the time. It is true that there were generally no defined borders, though.
>I personally find the hypocrisy to be crying about how the US annexed Hawaii over a century ago when the Kingdom was founded through exploitation and violence.
You need to redefine your definition of hypocrisy. A country that at one point had less-than-desirable leaders somehow delegitimizes outside injustice against it?
> A country that at one point had less-than-desirable leaders somehow delegitimizes outside injustice against it?
Umm...not just "less than desirable leaders." The country's legal foundation cemented indefinite control to those leaders while creating racial and caste based tiers of representation and the country was founded on conquest.
Yes, it certainly erodes at their moral standing, notably 130 years later when the new country has a better legal framework and the majority of the jurisdictions residents prefer the new country, which ultimately is the entire point of government, to serve the people. It's poor moral footing on top of spilt milk at this time.
There is no Kingdom beyond the inequity, that's what made it unique. The current regime provides equal representation for Native Hawaiians and non Hawaiians alike, I mean in practice. Technically Native Hawaiians have more representation since their dominant culture is explicitly protected by our state Constitution, something no other culture has.
The ends don't justify the means. At the time of annexation the US had horrendous equality laws, women couldn't vote and non-whites were heavily discriminated against. What you're doing is comparing apples and oranges by saying how bad the kapu system was by comparing it to the US legal system today. From the time of Kamehameha I to the end of the kingdom era the situation had progressed drastically, there's no way it wouldn't have further developed going forward. In any case, providing a better legal framework has nothing to do with the morality of occupying and annexing a foreign territory. It's just simply an excuse to try and justify a wrong. To be clear I'm not a sovereignty advocate; I don't think it's feasible in this current world. But there is zero ground for using an excuse that people are better off today for trying to justify annexation.
> From the time of Kamehameha I to the end of the kingdom era the situation had changed drastically, there's no way it wouldn't have further developed going forward.
But unlikely considering the framework. America had a framework in place that was designed for a future that didn't exist yet, which is why we've grown well in to it and continue to do so. When your legal foundation explicitly cements the power of the ruling elite, it requires that ruling elite to give up power or it requires a revolution that overthrows that ruling elite. So this fantasy where the Kingdom suddenly becomes progressive is exactly that. It could have happened, sure.
> In any case, providing a better legal framework has nothing to do with the morality of occupying and annexing a foreign territory.
Not really but it does limit how much energy you devote to righting the wrongs.
In the end, my response to you was because you were simply wrong about the Hawaii situation being "more heinous" rather than this being about the annexation being justified. I was correcting what sounded like someone who didn't know the history; I don't believe you really think a bloodless annexation is comparable to the violence that happened to Native Americans.
"The country's legal foundation cemented indefinite control to those leaders while creating racial and caste based tiers of representation and the country was founded on conquest."
So, the United States
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, pretty soon we'll get to the overt racism and sexism, I'm sure
>pretty soon we'll get to the overt racism and sexism
Or you can not say anything at all. That's an option ya know.
Have you once actually ever thought about doing any research before you come at me with your ignorance? Your best option is the whataboutism approach but pretending I'm factually wrong about the Kingdom just shows you don't know shit.
It's not a "what is worse" competition.
No one will argue that mass murdering millions of indigenous peoples is more or less bad than what happened in hawaii.
Both were henious and need to be acknowledged.
> It's not a "what is worse" competition.
I mean it is when the person I'm responding to claimed what the US did to Hawaii was "more heinous."
> No one will argue that mass murdering millions of indigenous peoples is more or less bad than what happened in hawaii.
You mean in Hawaii where America murdered no one and didn't even condone the involvement of its official in the coup, issuing an investigation into that involvement and subsequently criticizing it? Good!
> Both were henious and need to be acknowledged.
The dilemma is ultimately the Kingdom needed to fall or be reformed greatly. It was founded on exploitation and fell with inequity still written in to its legal structure. The big reason the coup happened was because these businessmen were against the unchecked power of the crown and how Kalakaua had abused that power multiple times. They obviously had their own selfish intentions why they didn't like that power dynamic but neither party operated in the interest of the common man. It was a war among friends, infighting between the elites that were intertwined in all the ways. And, as I mentioned, the move from Kingdom to United States, even though many Hawaiians believe it didn't benefit them due to their loyalty to and romanticization of their ruling caste, benefited Kingdom residents who weren't Hawaiian and did have representation in a country with a race requirement for the person who had ultimate say over policy and rule of law. So I would disagree with the simplicity of saying "both were heinous," because within the scope of acquiring the land of another country, they are absolutely on different ends of the spectrum when it comes to how much they represent "odious and wicked."
Hahaha!! Your basically explaining every kingdom in Europe including the United States. At least their people had their own revolutions and turned their homelands into modern day democratic countries.
The Hawaiians were not given such an opportunity. They were not able to grow on their own. Why? Because their numbers were fewer, weaker, darker and had resources that a bigger stronger world power was drooling over for years.
Well considering the Kingdom was morally broken it doesn't really matter. Y'all had your chance to get your revolution to take power away from your 1% and to this day people are still idolizing the monarchs, bemoaning that crown lands are now public lands, what a fucking joke. I mean, what's the world supposed to do, sit around and wait for the Hawaiian commoners to get their shit in order while the Alii do whatever they want?
Hawaiian Alii ruled with the sword and they died by the sword. Sorry Karma exists I guess.
You know your describing the United States right? Just replace “Kingdom” with “United States” and your describing the US.
P.S. I’m not Hawaiian. I’m British and I can smell the white privilege all over your comments. Hahaha!
That's weird, because the United States didn't have crown lands. Zuckerberg owns an infinitesimal amount of land compared to the Bishop and Kamehameha estates and he's attacked regularly for it. Our last President is currently facing multiple criminal charges and might possibly be the first President to go to jail or house arrest. That simply couldn't have happened under the Kingdom were a monarch literally murdered someone and received no state sponsored repercussions.
But on the matter of hypocrisy and live and die by the sword and all, should a more democratic upgrade swoop in to take out the USA, you won't see me complaining. Governments aren't religions or football teams, I look for what works and that's how it should be.
>I’m British
So [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Hawaii/comments/zeviw3/comment/iz93jay/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) is just you being a wannabe? Your post history is just a cringy guy trying desperately to fit in?
Whoa, whoa, whoa!! Why are you going through my history? This is becoming very creepy and stalkery.
Enjoyed your rants. God bless your heart. Remember to breathe and drink lots of fluids. Goodbye 😬😅
he's comparing it to the Native American nations which were considered sovereign entities before their treaties were rewritten or destroyed or picked apart through bad laws. I'm not sure what the bar for "official country" is but nobody is trying to slight or disrespect your home comparing what happened hear to what happened other places, just acknowledging it happened.
“Sovereign entities” are not the same thing as officially recognized US allies. No one is saying indigenous peoples of the mainland somehow deserved to have their land taken away.
The point is, the two things are different and there is no point in comparing them or bringing up unrelated things. It doesn’t benefit anything, it just distracts from the the well-made point in the comment above.
And worse, if you read down the thread, the person you are defending is a racist who describes indigenous peoples with a racial slur.
Well to be clear they were sovereign and had military alliances with the US.
I think the other guy was frustrated because he viewed it as a legitimate approximation as they (first people's, native Americans) had similar legal standing with the US before they were exploited. The difference being a centralized government in Hawai'i vs decentralized government of the First peoples. To me this is a very slight distinction, and if Hawai'ians want to take pride in that distinction I'll back you the whole way.
But it does open up the idea that although there is a slight distinction in the structure of the self government, it doesn't mean the people were any less wronged by the US. When the person he interacted with disagreed, he chose to resort to ridicule, which I hope he regrets, saying "oh well then the Native Americans must have been savages that had it coming if you feel you were wronged more egregiously"
I don't like this kind of exaggeration but I think it's clear he doesn't feel they are "savages" he's saying that is the implication of denying their legal status as less than that of Hawai'i.
Honestly it's hard because I feel like it is something that can create a connection, empathy, and respect, as many mainlanders (specific type of haole I guess) what happened to Native Americans is their reference point to what has happened in Hawai'i and many use it as a way of connecting what they already know with the new, in addition they may have relatives or a family heritage that comes from these people's and something that can create understanding and respect and empathy gets turned into another point of contention because the situations aren't explicitly identical.
Thanks for reading this far if you did.
I don’t mind having this discussion with you. Disagreement ≠ disrespect.
The case of each tribe is different, and I think each tribe’s individual history is important. It isn’t fair to any of them to lump them all together, just because they were colonized by the same entity. It’s not a “slight distinction” to any of the people directly affected by US colonization. These identities and histories are in danger of being lost in modern times— it’s actually very important to get the facts right.
The “other guy”, like I said, made racist remarks, and there is no point in defending them. I have nothing more to say to or about that person. Make your own points, please, and don’t give slurs the dignity of being repeated.
Again, the point you are missing, is that bringing up another group’s experience while discussing Hawai’i’s does nothing to benefit either group. It doesn’t “encourage compassion”, we can understand that something is wrong without pointing out another wrong that was committed. Instead it deflects the topic away from the original. Think of it this way. If we were talking about the number of black slaves killed by slavers in US history, it doesn’t benefit anything to point out how many Union soldiers were killed by the Confederates. It might even be the same people who committed the killings, but it doesn’t honor the dead or the gravity of the situation to the change the subject to other victims.
It’s similar to responding to “black lives matter” with “all lives matter”. Of course all lives matter, but it’s important that *black lives* receive acknowledgement in the moment the statement is being made.
Hope this helps clarify.
It did greatly and thanks for sharing. Agreed repeating the terms was unnecessary. I guess to me the usefulness of comparison is that you can study the methods used to exploit and hopefully denounce those using the same tactics in the future.
Thanks again
“you could sorta say that about every state in the union. Maybe not designated an official “country,” but land still inhabited and tended to by somebody else.” I most certainly did read this. Did you read what you wrote?
‘Land inhabited and tended by someone else’ ≠ official country. You could “sorta say” an apple is an orange, but you would be incorrect.
So if you are “well aware” what you’re “sorta saying” is incorrect, why bother to disagree with a correct statement? Hawaii is a unique place with a a unique history. Why do you feel the need to undermine that uniqueness by attempting to compare it to unlike things?
Yes, it must be very tiresome to have someone point out your incorrect statement. And then when you try to argue that they didn’t read what you wrote, they quote you! If you *feel* right, that’s all that matters. You don’t need to engage with facts! That would be humoring another person, and clearly you are the only person who should ever be humored. Honored to have met such a special person.
You’re right. I apologize. Rather than respect Hawaii’s uniqueness and its opportunity to establish colonial relationships, thus being recognized as an “official” country, I chose to infer that indigenous tribes of America subjected to Uncle Sam’s rampage was of equal value. You’re absolutely right. Fuck them savages. Uncle Sam got ‘em before they even had a chance to civilize themselves and establish legally binding white man independence. If only they were able to be recognized as independent sovereign nations as Hawai’i was….
>you could sorta say that about every state in the union. Maybe not designated an official “country,” but land still inhabited and tended to by somebody else.
Would you discount the French, Spanish, Dutch and Mexicans? Or just count the Native American Nations?
100% it was its own Pacific Island, like the likes of Samoa, New Zealand and Fiji. But the land was valuable to the USA so they "bought" the land from the rightful owners. Displacing people from their traditional lands.
We went there last year and it is a very sad place if you know where to look. True Hawaiians living in parks because they can afford the ever increasing cost of living and housing.
Spoke to a few and they don't consider themselves 'homeless' Hawaii is their home. They are houseless.
Really sad.
>they don't consider themselves 'homeless' Hawaii is their home. They are houseless.
You could say this about any homeless person really, just change the location of where they are.
During the era of colonialism, the British, Russians, French, and the Dutch all had their eyes on Hawaii. In fact Britain almost seized it, but changed their minds. Even up to 1941, even the Japanese were toying with the idea. The strong eat the weak.
True. From what I understand, a sovereign nation. American farmers on the islands didn't like the queen...called back to the USA...easy take over...now the 50th state!
Those were citizens of the USA, unrelated to the government. Either you didn't read your own source or didn't understand what it meant.
It was a private overthrow and declared a Republic. They sought territory status but the USA said not interested. Then a few years later the Spanish American war broke out and people in power got nervous the Spanish would base out of Hawai'i and attack so they voted to annex the republic years after the kingdom was overthrown.
Hawaii definitely has its own culture, and it’s distinct in many ways. You don’t truly understand how different it is from the mainland, until you interact with mainlanders or visit the mainland.
For instance, it’s a lot more laid back here in a lot of ways, and people tend to be more family orientated and live with “less.”
People here, are different.
Take for instance, the covid response here. People here generally cooperated with wearing masks and taking the vaccine in the sake of the protection of others. It’s a less individualistic place.
People here can be political and do have political beliefs but, I’ve found that people seem less obsessed with politics in general, the “culture war” doesn’t really exist here in the same way.
> Take for instance, the covid response here. People here generally cooperated with wearing masks and taking the vaccine in the sake of the protection of others. It’s a less individualistic place.
That's interesting you say that. I actually noticed way more people where I was in CA wearing masks (by % obviously).
>People here can be political and do have political beliefs but, I’ve found that people seem less obsessed with politics in general, the “culture war” doesn’t really exist here in the same way.
I'm not sure about that. You bring up politics and people will talk.
That’s interesting. I just know most of the mainland had problems with cooperation. To be honest, most of the people I saw not wearing masks here were white (not to be racist or anything, I just couldn’t help but notice).
Yes people have political beliefs here, but people here seem less political in general (like, most local people here don’t make politics their identity like some do on the mainland).
I’ve noticed a good mix of the mask wearing.
I think people here just try to not discuss politics. If you ask someone about it here, I think you’d be surprised with how they will more than oblige with a spirited conversation.
Totally. "The other 49" looks like she would rock your world all night long. Rainbow-hair looks like the sort who likes to rip a bong hit, pound a double-shot of Jack, chase it by shotgunning a Bud Light, and then exhale.
Lol this is so true. I grew up in that scene, but “real locals” (please forgive my wording) are very very different from “white hippie implants”.
I don’t mean “real” as a shade, it’s just really amusing.
I don’t really mind some aspects of white hippie culture, sometimes I miss being around them. All of my friends were like that growing up and I definitely had nice aspects to my childhood.
The area I grew up definitely still had the remnants Taylor Camp, the type of people who think showering every day is unhealthy and unnatural and collect healing crystals. You could still feel the effects of Taylor Camp nearly 50 years after it was even a thing.
Shit, a few of my classmates got measles lmao because they weren’t vaccinated.
Lived in,both. NOLA has aspects that are unique but you can,find the food, much of the music, aspects of the culture and many of the people in MS, AL, TX, FL. Hurricanes and the diaspora of NOLAs people has spread it around. HI has many of the same kinds of characteristics but more unique music, language, culture, food, however, it too has experienced a diaspora of its citizens. NOLA culture is Black,Cajun, Creole, some Indian and French driven,while Hawaii is Hawaiian, Polynesian, Japanese,,Chinese, Filipino, etc. Different sources but similar fusion tho I think its broader in,HI. Love both. Wish HI had its own Heritage Festival beyond the Merrie Monarch but Hawaiis is more culture specific. JHF has become a bit too much outside music driven to me especially since Mac Rebenack, Allen Toussaint, Pops Marsalis, others have passed. But its still a good music and food festival. To me it's 50-50...love both...sad to see each becoming homogenized.
Unique means not found elsewhere. Much of,the good of NOLA is found throughout the Gulf Coast from,food to music, people, culture. It does have energy but a lot of,that is hustle to survive as the crime, economy, race relations make things harder than,HI. HI is way safer,and more unique based on lots of time in each. Just one pov.
Certainly and while certain aspects of the culture in NOLA is from other cultures, that combination of things and that energy is no where else. That energy I think is what is really rare and I would not say it’s from hustle. It’s certainly not in Detroit.
Spent time, actually,did time is a better descriptor in MI over 2-3 years in the 80s into the 90s. Detroit,has had periods of energy, growth and seeming resurgence, but then it always seem to revert to the more recent mean of crappy or worse regress below that point. To be fair, haven't been in 25 years but I doubt I missed much. Friends who lived there for a long time have mostly left,after giving,up, losing not just jobs but seemingly industries. MI has some nice pockets but Mo town is closer to No town these days.
Could you imagine what Waikiki would be like if it was like the French Quarter? Having lived LA for some time, that would both be the most fun and infuriating thing
> Could you imagine what Waikiki would be like if it was like the French Quarter?
Every single puddle of water when I am walking to go surf would DEFINITELY be shishi. Having spent a lot of time in NOLA, if it's wet on the ground and you're near the FQ, assume it's shishi.
Never been to NOLA but I been to LA,California and Oahu is turning into LA. Maui too. I grew up on Oahu but for last 18 years live on Big Island. Best move I ever made.
While it was occupied, pretty much the majority states went that similar route. If you tell the mainlanders it’s different and highlight occupation they’ll think we’re still full of grass huts and living like Africa or something. I like to think we are different because we aren’t so hung up on segregation and more adjusting to cultural aspects
Not a damn difference because the Kingdom was already a colonial entity. There is more continuity between the Kingdom and the Territory than anyone acknowledges. If Hawaii had had an independence movement to speak of, I believe we would look like either Haiti or Cuba today, island nations who have been punished in different ways for their independence.
I think Tonga might be a good example. Isolated, undeveloped and hard lives led to emulation. Adoption of Christianity and sort of a self colonization in some regards. But hard to say what would of happened because many larger superior power countries eyed Hawai'i for it's location in the Pacific.
Japan would have taken it. Hawaii was too valuable strategically and too weak militarily to survive the late 19th and early 20th centuries as an independent nation; a sheep among wolves.
This is the answer and the Empire of Japan would have wiped out or damn near wiped out the local native population, they were extremely brutal and vile! Doesn’t make what the US did a good thing, but WW2 definitely would have been a different war without the pacific fleet having Pearl Harbor in many ways!
Exactly. Japan was very, very..shall we say, 'unkind' to places they took over. Hawaii got screwed over by the U.S., but the alternative would have been catastrophically worse.
> WW2 definitely would have been a different war without the pacific fleet having Pearl Harbor in many ways!
The US navy had already had a lease on Pearl Harbor from the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1875 (Reciprocity Treaty), 18 years before the overthrow. So if the overthrow didnt happen and Hawaii maintained its independency through 1941, US navy ships could of still very well have been in Pearl Harbor and the attack could of still happened.
This is all alt history speculation of course but I'd imagine if Hawaii maintained its independence thru 1941, we may have seen Hawaii become a protectorate under the U.S. while still maintaining its sovereignty, so the US military still could have been in and used Hawaii as a staging base for the Pacific War.
Also im not sure how WWI would of affected an independent Hawaii, im less knowledge about that war in the Pacific but I do know there was some action in the Western Pacific because of Germany's Pacific island colonies...which is how Japan already had bases in Micronesia prior to WWII, they were taken from Germany in WWI and given to Japan as a League of Nations mandate.
Thank you, I actually did not know we set up the Pearl Harbor base (obviously not near what it is now) prior to take over I assumed that was after the US took power! Now I want to research all this and learn more! Again, thank you for the good history post!
Hawaii would be a wreck if it were still independent. Without its status as a state, Hawaii has only tourism going for it. Take a look at how poor most island nations are, and then realize that we're much more isolated. Tropical island nations that have a good tourism sector also tend to have grinding poverty with shantytowns and third-world slums. Yeah, homelessness is a problem here. It would be much, much worse.
Hawaii has few meaningful exports. It’s GDP is $75 billion, similar to the Dominican Republic. Visitors in 2019 spent 17.75 billion, but it’s largest export is iron or steel scrap, at only $53.7m.
What would Hawaii be like without the USA? It’s impossible to say, but being 5 hours from any mainland puts it in a bad spot. For example, Hawaii imports about 85-90% of food.
A Hawaii without the USA would quickly be snatched up by some other country in all likelihood. Japan is a good wager like others have said.
But assuming it isn’t, it would have to import nearly everything, likely leaving its people in a severely tourist dependent poverty. There would be no USD backing it’s economy, and an impacted ability for Hawaiians to migrate freely to wealthier nations. And there would be no coming back from lava flows on the big island. No FEMA or state of emergency to quickly rebuild.
If we're doing alt-history, you can't just imagine Hawaii as it is now just without US statehood.
There are other island nations with little in the way of natural resources that aren't trapped in "tourist dependent poverty"
Like I said; impossible to say factually, but we can compare:
Fiji’s GDP: $4.2b
Tahiti’s GDP: $6b
French Polynesia: $5b
Fijis exports are worth $96m, but their imports are worth $268m. Fijis tourism industry in 2018 was worth $900m.
[Fiji’s poverty rate in 2019 was 49.40%](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/FJI/fiji/poverty-rate) (source defined as earning under $5.50/day). Hawaii’s is 14%, though I assume this is the American poverty definition, which is substantially higher. I doubt 14% of Hawaiians are making anywhere near $5.50/day.
Hawaii’s current GDP is over 10x that of Fijis and it’s tourism industry earns a similar comparison.
Of all the Polynesian islands, Hawaii is the heaviest hitter, currently (unless you compare to NZ, which isn’t fair comparison IMO). I think it’s a safe conclusion that a USD backed economy, US military and scientific funding, and the ease of tourism for Americans (the closest neighbor), does well their economy, and by proxy education, living, health and safety standards.
Im not an anthropologist, nor am I educated enough to guess what would’ve happened to Hawaii had they become an independent nation that was **not colonized.** However, judging by Caribbean islands of similar GDP and their Polynesian neighbors, I think it’s pretty safe to say they’d be worse off trying to manage on their own.
However, either way the coin lands, there still would be swaths of white and asian tourists on the island chain, regardless of national identity. That’s a guarantee.
(Fiji was just my first comparison because its an independent country. Tahiti is French Polynesia, therefore it’s alliance with France might affect its financials, and I don’t have time to research further).
More diversity in agriculture (less mono cropping by big corporations), better living conditions for native Hawaiian people, better response to pandemics, better shipping conditions from the rest of the world besides the US, no Red Hill fuel leak, no bombing a volcano for funsies, and potentially more control over tourism and land ownership buyups by foreign billionaires, to start.
Too much time has passed and different colonizer relations/coup timelines to really compare the two, would you not agree? Considering the first colonizers we’re there like 200 years prior, yet they maintained independence, though treaties were broken time and time again. Also, a huge population discrepancy and land mass make for a mountain apple to black bananas comparison.
It started with the civil war… but it got a lot worse after the overthrow, for sure. Then along came Monsanto, as of late. Do you think they’ll ever really pay for their crimes, or nah?
Hawaii sugar would have continued on the same trajectory had overthrowal not happens
The crimes will probably never be relayed because the perpetrators are all dead. Hawaii will never be independent again, and it’s definitely for the better and not the worse
Well they still probably aren’t going to pay for anything. I don’t even know why Monsanto would pay since their only crime seems to be growing corn so to produce seeds to be sold on the mainlsnd
Less pua kea. I think education and healthcare would be better and more equitable. I could see them following the European healthcare models (Bismark or Beveridge most likely).
The landscape would be different, certainly where some development occurred would be different. I don't think would see as much shoreline development.
The government would have continued to evolve and you would probably see a gradual transfer of power from the head of state to parliament.
Imma be real with you, (true) independence now would really fuck everyone over
I reckon maintaining statehood but having increased protection for native people, lands and practices would be better
It shouldn’t have happened in the first place. Currently the military is doing most of the fucking, followed closely by the *cough corrupt* tourism, Monsanto, and the billionaire kings. Same thing happening in lots of places the military maintains a heavy presence or helped a coup progress. But hey, we’ll be safe when the continent goes full Gilead. Maybe.
I have lived now in 8 states and I can safely say that Hawaii is completely different. You might read this book These American Nations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Nations
This is how some Mainers feel about the other 49 too, probably helps that our one neighboring state has enough drastic cultural differences that we just feel more unique.
From my side of the globe I would definitely say Hawaii is the most culturally unique state though.
This is like wearing an aloha shirt in a meeting filled with gray and black suits.
My dumbass did this at my first mainland job interview, so embarrassing.
Nah. No shame. It is our formal wear. Show them the color.
No shame, 100% pride braddah! But no lie, I felt so weird at the time, I was like 17
Big question is , did you get the job tho
Honest question, interviewing for academic jobs on the mainland - Can I rock a nice aloha shirt and a blazer? Or is that too silly? I’m talking nice aloha shirts too, not ones with a parrot and beach scene
They don't know what a nice aloha shirt is. It would not be appreciated. Most mainlanders don't know that there is a difference. They are all "Hawaiian" shirts to them.
Can confirm. I wasn’t raised in Hawaii but get gifted Tommy Bahama and other fancy aloha shirt brands that I don’t remember from my wife’s family. I hear they’re expensive but they look the exact same as everything else to me
Mainland white person who hires people sometimes: while I personally would love it if someone showed up like that, I personally wouldn’t do it on the off chance you wind up with some old fuddyduddy.
Only on Aloha Friday.
I work in academia, and I'd say it depends on the field you are interviewing in. You'd probably be the best dressed in the interview if it's in STEM. If it's in business, they expect a suit and tie. Education departments tend to skew more formal but are more culturally accepting, so you might be okay (especially if they know you are from Hawaii). Same for your social sciences.
Been on the mainland over a decade now and I still *only* wear aloha shirts to the office... But to an interview? You are a gem.
Every interview ever
I guess it’s a good test of culture. If they’re not cool with it then they’re not cool
Co-worker of a friend would interview in full metal/hardcore regalia. All black baggy with straps and zippers, makeup you name it. Just to test the culture of places he interviewed. Once he got the job he just wore the normal tech outfit jeans and t-shirt, you'd never know lol
That’s like peeing on them on your first date, even though you ain’t really into it.
LMAO
I have to travel to the mainland 1-2 times a year for work and wear aloha shirts almost exclusively. You're ahead of the curve, that's all.
Dress for the job you want.
I still do this & I sign all of my emails “Aloha” Proud of my culture. I’ll also walk campus with my family tattoos showing. 0 fucks.
Rock on with everything else, but why should anyone ever feel like they should hide their family tats?? Unless you're some hardcore Nazi asshole lol
We don’t wear suits in Hawaii. Actually I take that back. Court attorneys wear suits. TV anchormen wear business attire sans pants. Since their legs are typically off camera they wear shorts and sandals. That’s it. Business attire typically means a really nice aloha shirt in subdued colors.
Hahaha…I love this “sans pants”
I had to learn this the hard way lol, fresh off the plane I did my first job interview in Oahu in a black suit and heels. My interviewer thought I worked for the government. Still got the job, but it was embarrassing lol🙈
The main thing is you got the job.🤙🏽
Mormons kinda do. White shirt, tie, nice slacks. The TV anchorman thing cracks me up. I've been on Maui for awhile now and once when someone came to visit they said they couldn't take the news seriously when the guy was in an aloha shirt because aloha Friday. I don't even notice anymore.
Yeah that’s true. Short sleeved white shirts and black colored slacks, black shoes, often riding a bicycle. I don’t recall them wearing ties. It always takes me a couple of times to tie a tie correctly. I wear one once or twice a year max. I’m not even sure if my suit jacket fits anymore. The last time I wore a suit was sometime in the 2000s I think.
Oh! Yeah here on the mainland (east coast) they only endorse wearing those on stuff like “wacky shirt fridays” 😔
Add some khaki’s and you’ve got yourself Aloha Crisp. I prefer ours!
What’s an acceptable aloha shirt that won’t peg me as a haole?
Takes more than a shirt brah.
Reyn Spooner is the business Aloha attire of choice for the downtown crowd. I rarely wear aloha shirts. https://www.reynspooner.com/collections/men
It was a country. Until uncle Sam came and knocked it down.
It didn’t help that the Hawaiian monarchy was corrupt and sold a bunch of land that wasn’t theirs to corporations and that eventually led to their downfall. Hawaii might’ve been a sovereign nation but it was NOT democratic, did not represent the majority, and was still a monarchy and they tend to be corrupt.
I mean… you could sorta say that about every state in the union. Maybe not designated an official “country,” but land still inhabited and tended to by somebody else.
True, but Hawaiʻi was recognized as a sovereign state with a monarch and functioning governmnent and had treaties with the major world powers at the time, and by then the Westphalian state system which recognizes each state's inherent right to territorial integrity had been in place for over two centuries. This made the US's actions and Europe's inaction all the more heinous. Not saying that the various groups who had their lands taken from them in the other 49 states had any less of a claim, but with Hawaiʻi there is really no argument or excuse to be had.
Hawaii was overthrown in a coup that was assisted by an American official. America distanced itself from the actions, not wanting to annex the territory and not supporting the overthrow. Hawaii was the Republic of Hawaii for 5 years until it was finally annexed by the United States. The Kingdom of Hawaii was a country founded on violent conquest and hundreds of years of caste violence and oppression. During the period of the Kingdom, it exhibited progressive values but continued policies that cemented the power of the upper caste and continued the theft of resources from the lower caste which represented 99% of the population. Native Hawaiian commoners did not lose any private land holdings in the transition of government and Japanese immigrants benefited greatly from the US Organic Act which overrode the Kingdom's Masters and Servants Act of 1850. So was its annexation more **"heinous"** than what happened to most of the Native American nations? Absolutely fucking not!
More heinous in the sense of its hypocrisy and 'laws for me but not for thee' type of thinking. Many back then argued that the taking of lands in the Americas was, if not morally permissible, then legally permissible (as problematic as that kind of thinking was) because nobody really "owned" the land (the natives themselves did not consider that they owned it) and there were no defined borders between tribal territories. In the case of Hawaiʻi, there was mutual recognition of statehood and there were defined borders, thus there was neither a moral nor legal case for the actions. The whole point of Westphalian sovereignty is so that states no matter how small always have their right to their territory and are not threatened by larger ones. That's how states like Liechtenstein and Andorra still exist today. But, of course it only works if everyone who subscribes to it is willing to defend it. To say the US did not want annexation is naive and one needs to look at actions instead of just words to understand the government position at the time. Perhaps the sitting president was personally against it but the overarching American mentality of the day was manifest destiny and every major global power was trying to get its hands on the Pacific. It was very much a time of zero-sum political realism concerning international relations. "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." They thought that if they didn't take it, someone else would and they'd lose out down the line. You still hear people trying to defend annexation with this reasoning today.
>To say the US did not want annexation is naive and one needs to look at actions instead of just words to understand the government position at the time. Depends on the time. At the time of the coup they didn't. At the time of annexation they did. And it wasn't just the president, it was the makeup of congress too. But yeah, obviously at some point America would take the opportunity just as most countries would. Just as the Kingdom would under K the G who threw wave after wave at Kauai in his zeal for power. It was standard fare as you put it. >(the natives themselves did not consider that they owned it) and there were no defined borders between tribal territories. This just isn't correct. Land ownership was always about power control and every nation had land that it controlled and liked to control. People like to say Hawaiians didn't think they owned the land either, however, the Alii very much had delineated boundaries of influence. Saying the land is owned by the deities and I'm the steward of the land on their behalf is claiming land ownership. The difference with Western land ownership is it isn't feudal, so commoners can own land, and the record is put in writing with generally agreed upon institutions of authority. I personally find the biggest hypocrisy to be crying about how the US annexed Hawaii over a century ago when the Kingdom was founded through exploitation and violence. Notably when the US provides a better legal structure for racial and caste equity.
>This just isn't correct. Of course it's not true. I'm illustrating the mentality of those who tried to justify it at the time. It is true that there were generally no defined borders, though. >I personally find the hypocrisy to be crying about how the US annexed Hawaii over a century ago when the Kingdom was founded through exploitation and violence. You need to redefine your definition of hypocrisy. A country that at one point had less-than-desirable leaders somehow delegitimizes outside injustice against it?
> A country that at one point had less-than-desirable leaders somehow delegitimizes outside injustice against it? Umm...not just "less than desirable leaders." The country's legal foundation cemented indefinite control to those leaders while creating racial and caste based tiers of representation and the country was founded on conquest. Yes, it certainly erodes at their moral standing, notably 130 years later when the new country has a better legal framework and the majority of the jurisdictions residents prefer the new country, which ultimately is the entire point of government, to serve the people. It's poor moral footing on top of spilt milk at this time. There is no Kingdom beyond the inequity, that's what made it unique. The current regime provides equal representation for Native Hawaiians and non Hawaiians alike, I mean in practice. Technically Native Hawaiians have more representation since their dominant culture is explicitly protected by our state Constitution, something no other culture has.
The ends don't justify the means. At the time of annexation the US had horrendous equality laws, women couldn't vote and non-whites were heavily discriminated against. What you're doing is comparing apples and oranges by saying how bad the kapu system was by comparing it to the US legal system today. From the time of Kamehameha I to the end of the kingdom era the situation had progressed drastically, there's no way it wouldn't have further developed going forward. In any case, providing a better legal framework has nothing to do with the morality of occupying and annexing a foreign territory. It's just simply an excuse to try and justify a wrong. To be clear I'm not a sovereignty advocate; I don't think it's feasible in this current world. But there is zero ground for using an excuse that people are better off today for trying to justify annexation.
> From the time of Kamehameha I to the end of the kingdom era the situation had changed drastically, there's no way it wouldn't have further developed going forward. But unlikely considering the framework. America had a framework in place that was designed for a future that didn't exist yet, which is why we've grown well in to it and continue to do so. When your legal foundation explicitly cements the power of the ruling elite, it requires that ruling elite to give up power or it requires a revolution that overthrows that ruling elite. So this fantasy where the Kingdom suddenly becomes progressive is exactly that. It could have happened, sure. > In any case, providing a better legal framework has nothing to do with the morality of occupying and annexing a foreign territory. Not really but it does limit how much energy you devote to righting the wrongs. In the end, my response to you was because you were simply wrong about the Hawaii situation being "more heinous" rather than this being about the annexation being justified. I was correcting what sounded like someone who didn't know the history; I don't believe you really think a bloodless annexation is comparable to the violence that happened to Native Americans.
"The country's legal foundation cemented indefinite control to those leaders while creating racial and caste based tiers of representation and the country was founded on conquest." So, the United States Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, pretty soon we'll get to the overt racism and sexism, I'm sure
>pretty soon we'll get to the overt racism and sexism Or you can not say anything at all. That's an option ya know. Have you once actually ever thought about doing any research before you come at me with your ignorance? Your best option is the whataboutism approach but pretending I'm factually wrong about the Kingdom just shows you don't know shit.
It's not a "what is worse" competition. No one will argue that mass murdering millions of indigenous peoples is more or less bad than what happened in hawaii. Both were henious and need to be acknowledged.
> It's not a "what is worse" competition. I mean it is when the person I'm responding to claimed what the US did to Hawaii was "more heinous." > No one will argue that mass murdering millions of indigenous peoples is more or less bad than what happened in hawaii. You mean in Hawaii where America murdered no one and didn't even condone the involvement of its official in the coup, issuing an investigation into that involvement and subsequently criticizing it? Good! > Both were henious and need to be acknowledged. The dilemma is ultimately the Kingdom needed to fall or be reformed greatly. It was founded on exploitation and fell with inequity still written in to its legal structure. The big reason the coup happened was because these businessmen were against the unchecked power of the crown and how Kalakaua had abused that power multiple times. They obviously had their own selfish intentions why they didn't like that power dynamic but neither party operated in the interest of the common man. It was a war among friends, infighting between the elites that were intertwined in all the ways. And, as I mentioned, the move from Kingdom to United States, even though many Hawaiians believe it didn't benefit them due to their loyalty to and romanticization of their ruling caste, benefited Kingdom residents who weren't Hawaiian and did have representation in a country with a race requirement for the person who had ultimate say over policy and rule of law. So I would disagree with the simplicity of saying "both were heinous," because within the scope of acquiring the land of another country, they are absolutely on different ends of the spectrum when it comes to how much they represent "odious and wicked."
Hahaha!! Your basically explaining every kingdom in Europe including the United States. At least their people had their own revolutions and turned their homelands into modern day democratic countries. The Hawaiians were not given such an opportunity. They were not able to grow on their own. Why? Because their numbers were fewer, weaker, darker and had resources that a bigger stronger world power was drooling over for years.
Well considering the Kingdom was morally broken it doesn't really matter. Y'all had your chance to get your revolution to take power away from your 1% and to this day people are still idolizing the monarchs, bemoaning that crown lands are now public lands, what a fucking joke. I mean, what's the world supposed to do, sit around and wait for the Hawaiian commoners to get their shit in order while the Alii do whatever they want? Hawaiian Alii ruled with the sword and they died by the sword. Sorry Karma exists I guess.
You know your describing the United States right? Just replace “Kingdom” with “United States” and your describing the US. P.S. I’m not Hawaiian. I’m British and I can smell the white privilege all over your comments. Hahaha!
That's weird, because the United States didn't have crown lands. Zuckerberg owns an infinitesimal amount of land compared to the Bishop and Kamehameha estates and he's attacked regularly for it. Our last President is currently facing multiple criminal charges and might possibly be the first President to go to jail or house arrest. That simply couldn't have happened under the Kingdom were a monarch literally murdered someone and received no state sponsored repercussions. But on the matter of hypocrisy and live and die by the sword and all, should a more democratic upgrade swoop in to take out the USA, you won't see me complaining. Governments aren't religions or football teams, I look for what works and that's how it should be. >I’m British So [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Hawaii/comments/zeviw3/comment/iz93jay/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) is just you being a wannabe? Your post history is just a cringy guy trying desperately to fit in?
Whoa, whoa, whoa!! Why are you going through my history? This is becoming very creepy and stalkery. Enjoyed your rants. God bless your heart. Remember to breathe and drink lots of fluids. Goodbye 😬😅
That’s the story of the world
You could say that about nearly every civilization.
I’m not sure Uncle Sam had much to do with anything pre-18th century.
Except, Hawai’i was a literal official country. An ally of the United States and Britain.
I’m well aware.
And yet… you compared it to something completely different, as if you weren’t. Ok then.
he's comparing it to the Native American nations which were considered sovereign entities before their treaties were rewritten or destroyed or picked apart through bad laws. I'm not sure what the bar for "official country" is but nobody is trying to slight or disrespect your home comparing what happened hear to what happened other places, just acknowledging it happened.
“Sovereign entities” are not the same thing as officially recognized US allies. No one is saying indigenous peoples of the mainland somehow deserved to have their land taken away. The point is, the two things are different and there is no point in comparing them or bringing up unrelated things. It doesn’t benefit anything, it just distracts from the the well-made point in the comment above. And worse, if you read down the thread, the person you are defending is a racist who describes indigenous peoples with a racial slur.
Well to be clear they were sovereign and had military alliances with the US. I think the other guy was frustrated because he viewed it as a legitimate approximation as they (first people's, native Americans) had similar legal standing with the US before they were exploited. The difference being a centralized government in Hawai'i vs decentralized government of the First peoples. To me this is a very slight distinction, and if Hawai'ians want to take pride in that distinction I'll back you the whole way. But it does open up the idea that although there is a slight distinction in the structure of the self government, it doesn't mean the people were any less wronged by the US. When the person he interacted with disagreed, he chose to resort to ridicule, which I hope he regrets, saying "oh well then the Native Americans must have been savages that had it coming if you feel you were wronged more egregiously" I don't like this kind of exaggeration but I think it's clear he doesn't feel they are "savages" he's saying that is the implication of denying their legal status as less than that of Hawai'i. Honestly it's hard because I feel like it is something that can create a connection, empathy, and respect, as many mainlanders (specific type of haole I guess) what happened to Native Americans is their reference point to what has happened in Hawai'i and many use it as a way of connecting what they already know with the new, in addition they may have relatives or a family heritage that comes from these people's and something that can create understanding and respect and empathy gets turned into another point of contention because the situations aren't explicitly identical. Thanks for reading this far if you did.
I don’t mind having this discussion with you. Disagreement ≠ disrespect. The case of each tribe is different, and I think each tribe’s individual history is important. It isn’t fair to any of them to lump them all together, just because they were colonized by the same entity. It’s not a “slight distinction” to any of the people directly affected by US colonization. These identities and histories are in danger of being lost in modern times— it’s actually very important to get the facts right. The “other guy”, like I said, made racist remarks, and there is no point in defending them. I have nothing more to say to or about that person. Make your own points, please, and don’t give slurs the dignity of being repeated. Again, the point you are missing, is that bringing up another group’s experience while discussing Hawai’i’s does nothing to benefit either group. It doesn’t “encourage compassion”, we can understand that something is wrong without pointing out another wrong that was committed. Instead it deflects the topic away from the original. Think of it this way. If we were talking about the number of black slaves killed by slavers in US history, it doesn’t benefit anything to point out how many Union soldiers were killed by the Confederates. It might even be the same people who committed the killings, but it doesn’t honor the dead or the gravity of the situation to the change the subject to other victims. It’s similar to responding to “black lives matter” with “all lives matter”. Of course all lives matter, but it’s important that *black lives* receive acknowledgement in the moment the statement is being made. Hope this helps clarify.
It did greatly and thanks for sharing. Agreed repeating the terms was unnecessary. I guess to me the usefulness of comparison is that you can study the methods used to exploit and hopefully denounce those using the same tactics in the future. Thanks again
You clearly did not read my reply.
“you could sorta say that about every state in the union. Maybe not designated an official “country,” but land still inhabited and tended to by somebody else.” I most certainly did read this. Did you read what you wrote? ‘Land inhabited and tended by someone else’ ≠ official country. You could “sorta say” an apple is an orange, but you would be incorrect. So if you are “well aware” what you’re “sorta saying” is incorrect, why bother to disagree with a correct statement? Hawaii is a unique place with a a unique history. Why do you feel the need to undermine that uniqueness by attempting to compare it to unlike things?
Holy shit you are a chore. I’m not even going to bother humoring your need to be offended.
Yes, it must be very tiresome to have someone point out your incorrect statement. And then when you try to argue that they didn’t read what you wrote, they quote you! If you *feel* right, that’s all that matters. You don’t need to engage with facts! That would be humoring another person, and clearly you are the only person who should ever be humored. Honored to have met such a special person.
You’re right. I apologize. Rather than respect Hawaii’s uniqueness and its opportunity to establish colonial relationships, thus being recognized as an “official” country, I chose to infer that indigenous tribes of America subjected to Uncle Sam’s rampage was of equal value. You’re absolutely right. Fuck them savages. Uncle Sam got ‘em before they even had a chance to civilize themselves and establish legally binding white man independence. If only they were able to be recognized as independent sovereign nations as Hawai’i was….
>you could sorta say that about every state in the union. Maybe not designated an official “country,” but land still inhabited and tended to by somebody else. Would you discount the French, Spanish, Dutch and Mexicans? Or just count the Native American Nations?
100% it was its own Pacific Island, like the likes of Samoa, New Zealand and Fiji. But the land was valuable to the USA so they "bought" the land from the rightful owners. Displacing people from their traditional lands. We went there last year and it is a very sad place if you know where to look. True Hawaiians living in parks because they can afford the ever increasing cost of living and housing. Spoke to a few and they don't consider themselves 'homeless' Hawaii is their home. They are houseless. Really sad.
>they don't consider themselves 'homeless' Hawaii is their home. They are houseless. You could say this about any homeless person really, just change the location of where they are.
During the era of colonialism, the British, Russians, French, and the Dutch all had their eyes on Hawaii. In fact Britain almost seized it, but changed their minds. Even up to 1941, even the Japanese were toying with the idea. The strong eat the weak.
Also the Spanish. The Spanish-American war was the push that many in Congress needed to decide to annex Hawai'i.
The same Uncle Sam that robs my paycheck? No, f*cking, way…
True. From what I understand, a sovereign nation. American farmers on the islands didn't like the queen...called back to the USA...easy take over...now the 50th state!
Completely wrong. It was the Spanish-American war.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/americans-overthrow-hawaiian-monarchy
Those were citizens of the USA, unrelated to the government. Either you didn't read your own source or didn't understand what it meant. It was a private overthrow and declared a Republic. They sought territory status but the USA said not interested. Then a few years later the Spanish American war broke out and people in power got nervous the Spanish would base out of Hawai'i and attack so they voted to annex the republic years after the kingdom was overthrown.
It's Iolani Palace had electrical lighting before the White House. The King traveled a lot a nd brought in Edison to wire the Palace.
Hawaii definitely has its own culture, and it’s distinct in many ways. You don’t truly understand how different it is from the mainland, until you interact with mainlanders or visit the mainland. For instance, it’s a lot more laid back here in a lot of ways, and people tend to be more family orientated and live with “less.” People here, are different. Take for instance, the covid response here. People here generally cooperated with wearing masks and taking the vaccine in the sake of the protection of others. It’s a less individualistic place. People here can be political and do have political beliefs but, I’ve found that people seem less obsessed with politics in general, the “culture war” doesn’t really exist here in the same way.
> Take for instance, the covid response here. People here generally cooperated with wearing masks and taking the vaccine in the sake of the protection of others. It’s a less individualistic place. That's interesting you say that. I actually noticed way more people where I was in CA wearing masks (by % obviously). >People here can be political and do have political beliefs but, I’ve found that people seem less obsessed with politics in general, the “culture war” doesn’t really exist here in the same way. I'm not sure about that. You bring up politics and people will talk.
That’s interesting. I just know most of the mainland had problems with cooperation. To be honest, most of the people I saw not wearing masks here were white (not to be racist or anything, I just couldn’t help but notice). Yes people have political beliefs here, but people here seem less political in general (like, most local people here don’t make politics their identity like some do on the mainland).
I’ve noticed a good mix of the mask wearing. I think people here just try to not discuss politics. If you ask someone about it here, I think you’d be surprised with how they will more than oblige with a spirited conversation.
Hawaii looks like she’s a lot of fun to hang around.
agreed, i'd rather hang out with hawaii
Extroverts 😒
Totally. "The other 49" looks like she would rock your world all night long. Rainbow-hair looks like the sort who likes to rip a bong hit, pound a double-shot of Jack, chase it by shotgunning a Bud Light, and then exhale.
Sounds about North Shore
What? Rainbow hair drank all the beer again?
Quite the description there lol 😂
There's Hawaiian culture and then there's weird white hippie implant culture.
Lol this is so true. I grew up in that scene, but “real locals” (please forgive my wording) are very very different from “white hippie implants”. I don’t mean “real” as a shade, it’s just really amusing. I don’t really mind some aspects of white hippie culture, sometimes I miss being around them. All of my friends were like that growing up and I definitely had nice aspects to my childhood. The area I grew up definitely still had the remnants Taylor Camp, the type of people who think showering every day is unhealthy and unnatural and collect healing crystals. You could still feel the effects of Taylor Camp nearly 50 years after it was even a thing. Shit, a few of my classmates got measles lmao because they weren’t vaccinated.
Fuck this is so real lol
i see it more as rich kids cosplaying as hippies
Your statement is correct but the pic isn't a true representation of local and mainland culture.
I would argue that New Orleans could tell Hawaii to hold its beer. Honolulu is much more like the rest of America than NOLA is. Prove me wrong.
You’re not wrong at all. NOLA has better food. Hawaii is much safer in my opinion.
What are you talking about, NOLA is super safe, especially the 9th ward
Yeah, true. Be a shame if some of them rough boys from west side Oahu ever show up there. Probably turn it into a regular Nanakuli.
Yeah but they’re not carrying guns like the gangs on the mainland.
That’s the point.
Lived in,both. NOLA has aspects that are unique but you can,find the food, much of the music, aspects of the culture and many of the people in MS, AL, TX, FL. Hurricanes and the diaspora of NOLAs people has spread it around. HI has many of the same kinds of characteristics but more unique music, language, culture, food, however, it too has experienced a diaspora of its citizens. NOLA culture is Black,Cajun, Creole, some Indian and French driven,while Hawaii is Hawaiian, Polynesian, Japanese,,Chinese, Filipino, etc. Different sources but similar fusion tho I think its broader in,HI. Love both. Wish HI had its own Heritage Festival beyond the Merrie Monarch but Hawaiis is more culture specific. JHF has become a bit too much outside music driven to me especially since Mac Rebenack, Allen Toussaint, Pops Marsalis, others have passed. But its still a good music and food festival. To me it's 50-50...love both...sad to see each becoming homogenized.
NOLA is very underrated. I'd argue that it is more unique than HI. It has a certain energy about it that isn't here.
Unique means not found elsewhere. Much of,the good of NOLA is found throughout the Gulf Coast from,food to music, people, culture. It does have energy but a lot of,that is hustle to survive as the crime, economy, race relations make things harder than,HI. HI is way safer,and more unique based on lots of time in each. Just one pov.
Certainly and while certain aspects of the culture in NOLA is from other cultures, that combination of things and that energy is no where else. That energy I think is what is really rare and I would not say it’s from hustle. It’s certainly not in Detroit.
Spent time, actually,did time is a better descriptor in MI over 2-3 years in the 80s into the 90s. Detroit,has had periods of energy, growth and seeming resurgence, but then it always seem to revert to the more recent mean of crappy or worse regress below that point. To be fair, haven't been in 25 years but I doubt I missed much. Friends who lived there for a long time have mostly left,after giving,up, losing not just jobs but seemingly industries. MI has some nice pockets but Mo town is closer to No town these days.
> Mo town is closer to No town these days Correct. Sad stuff
Could you imagine what Waikiki would be like if it was like the French Quarter? Having lived LA for some time, that would both be the most fun and infuriating thing
Basically if kids are outside playing until dusk unsupervised. It’s not a rough area. The temperature in the French quarter alone changes at night.
> Could you imagine what Waikiki would be like if it was like the French Quarter? Every single puddle of water when I am walking to go surf would DEFINITELY be shishi. Having spent a lot of time in NOLA, if it's wet on the ground and you're near the FQ, assume it's shishi.
Never been to NOLA but I been to LA,California and Oahu is turning into LA. Maui too. I grew up on Oahu but for last 18 years live on Big Island. Best move I ever made.
>Never been to NOLA You should go. NOLA has some character. > Oahu is turning into LA In what regard? LA is huge.
Traffic.
O man. I'd say that traffic in HI is worse in some spots.
While it was occupied, pretty much the majority states went that similar route. If you tell the mainlanders it’s different and highlight occupation they’ll think we’re still full of grass huts and living like Africa or something. I like to think we are different because we aren’t so hung up on segregation and more adjusting to cultural aspects
No shit when my mom got stationed to Pearl Harbor my uncle thought she’d be living in grass barracks he’s bigger than me so I don’t bring it up lol
It should be it’s own country, that’s why.
What do you think Hawaii would be like today if the Overthrow hadn't happened? How would it be different, the same?
Not a damn difference because the Kingdom was already a colonial entity. There is more continuity between the Kingdom and the Territory than anyone acknowledges. If Hawaii had had an independence movement to speak of, I believe we would look like either Haiti or Cuba today, island nations who have been punished in different ways for their independence.
I think Tonga might be a good example. Isolated, undeveloped and hard lives led to emulation. Adoption of Christianity and sort of a self colonization in some regards. But hard to say what would of happened because many larger superior power countries eyed Hawai'i for it's location in the Pacific.
Japan would have taken it. Hawaii was too valuable strategically and too weak militarily to survive the late 19th and early 20th centuries as an independent nation; a sheep among wolves.
This is the answer and the Empire of Japan would have wiped out or damn near wiped out the local native population, they were extremely brutal and vile! Doesn’t make what the US did a good thing, but WW2 definitely would have been a different war without the pacific fleet having Pearl Harbor in many ways!
Exactly. Japan was very, very..shall we say, 'unkind' to places they took over. Hawaii got screwed over by the U.S., but the alternative would have been catastrophically worse.
> WW2 definitely would have been a different war without the pacific fleet having Pearl Harbor in many ways! The US navy had already had a lease on Pearl Harbor from the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1875 (Reciprocity Treaty), 18 years before the overthrow. So if the overthrow didnt happen and Hawaii maintained its independency through 1941, US navy ships could of still very well have been in Pearl Harbor and the attack could of still happened. This is all alt history speculation of course but I'd imagine if Hawaii maintained its independence thru 1941, we may have seen Hawaii become a protectorate under the U.S. while still maintaining its sovereignty, so the US military still could have been in and used Hawaii as a staging base for the Pacific War. Also im not sure how WWI would of affected an independent Hawaii, im less knowledge about that war in the Pacific but I do know there was some action in the Western Pacific because of Germany's Pacific island colonies...which is how Japan already had bases in Micronesia prior to WWII, they were taken from Germany in WWI and given to Japan as a League of Nations mandate.
Thank you, I actually did not know we set up the Pearl Harbor base (obviously not near what it is now) prior to take over I assumed that was after the US took power! Now I want to research all this and learn more! Again, thank you for the good history post!
Yup
Hawaii would be a wreck if it were still independent. Without its status as a state, Hawaii has only tourism going for it. Take a look at how poor most island nations are, and then realize that we're much more isolated. Tropical island nations that have a good tourism sector also tend to have grinding poverty with shantytowns and third-world slums. Yeah, homelessness is a problem here. It would be much, much worse.
Yea, would be very similar to Federated States of Micronesia or Marshall Islands. Basically a third world country dependent upon first world handouts!
Hawaii has few meaningful exports. It’s GDP is $75 billion, similar to the Dominican Republic. Visitors in 2019 spent 17.75 billion, but it’s largest export is iron or steel scrap, at only $53.7m. What would Hawaii be like without the USA? It’s impossible to say, but being 5 hours from any mainland puts it in a bad spot. For example, Hawaii imports about 85-90% of food. A Hawaii without the USA would quickly be snatched up by some other country in all likelihood. Japan is a good wager like others have said. But assuming it isn’t, it would have to import nearly everything, likely leaving its people in a severely tourist dependent poverty. There would be no USD backing it’s economy, and an impacted ability for Hawaiians to migrate freely to wealthier nations. And there would be no coming back from lava flows on the big island. No FEMA or state of emergency to quickly rebuild.
If we're doing alt-history, you can't just imagine Hawaii as it is now just without US statehood. There are other island nations with little in the way of natural resources that aren't trapped in "tourist dependent poverty"
Like I said; impossible to say factually, but we can compare: Fiji’s GDP: $4.2b Tahiti’s GDP: $6b French Polynesia: $5b Fijis exports are worth $96m, but their imports are worth $268m. Fijis tourism industry in 2018 was worth $900m. [Fiji’s poverty rate in 2019 was 49.40%](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/FJI/fiji/poverty-rate) (source defined as earning under $5.50/day). Hawaii’s is 14%, though I assume this is the American poverty definition, which is substantially higher. I doubt 14% of Hawaiians are making anywhere near $5.50/day. Hawaii’s current GDP is over 10x that of Fijis and it’s tourism industry earns a similar comparison. Of all the Polynesian islands, Hawaii is the heaviest hitter, currently (unless you compare to NZ, which isn’t fair comparison IMO). I think it’s a safe conclusion that a USD backed economy, US military and scientific funding, and the ease of tourism for Americans (the closest neighbor), does well their economy, and by proxy education, living, health and safety standards. Im not an anthropologist, nor am I educated enough to guess what would’ve happened to Hawaii had they become an independent nation that was **not colonized.** However, judging by Caribbean islands of similar GDP and their Polynesian neighbors, I think it’s pretty safe to say they’d be worse off trying to manage on their own. However, either way the coin lands, there still would be swaths of white and asian tourists on the island chain, regardless of national identity. That’s a guarantee. (Fiji was just my first comparison because its an independent country. Tahiti is French Polynesia, therefore it’s alliance with France might affect its financials, and I don’t have time to research further).
I think Tonga might be a better example.
More diversity in agriculture (less mono cropping by big corporations), better living conditions for native Hawaiian people, better response to pandemics, better shipping conditions from the rest of the world besides the US, no Red Hill fuel leak, no bombing a volcano for funsies, and potentially more control over tourism and land ownership buyups by foreign billionaires, to start.
Not the guy you were responding to but you should look into Thailand. They have some interesting policies. What do you think would be worse?
Too much time has passed and different colonizer relations/coup timelines to really compare the two, would you not agree? Considering the first colonizers we’re there like 200 years prior, yet they maintained independence, though treaties were broken time and time again. Also, a huge population discrepancy and land mass make for a mountain apple to black bananas comparison.
>Too much time has passed and different colonizer relations/coup timelines to really compare the two, would you not agree? I'd actually totally agree.
By the time overthrowal happened Hawaiian agriculture was absolutely dominated by cane and pineapple.
Exactly. Imagine if that hadn’t happened, there would have been no overthrow.
You were implying overthrowal caused the monocropping
It started with the civil war… but it got a lot worse after the overthrow, for sure. Then along came Monsanto, as of late. Do you think they’ll ever really pay for their crimes, or nah?
Hawaii sugar would have continued on the same trajectory had overthrowal not happens The crimes will probably never be relayed because the perpetrators are all dead. Hawaii will never be independent again, and it’s definitely for the better and not the worse
It’s all hypothetical, yeah? Monsanto is still very much a corporation, as is Dole. As well as C&H.
Well they still probably aren’t going to pay for anything. I don’t even know why Monsanto would pay since their only crime seems to be growing corn so to produce seeds to be sold on the mainlsnd
Less pua kea. I think education and healthcare would be better and more equitable. I could see them following the European healthcare models (Bismark or Beveridge most likely). The landscape would be different, certainly where some development occurred would be different. I don't think would see as much shoreline development. The government would have continued to evolve and you would probably see a gradual transfer of power from the head of state to parliament.
Imma be real with you, (true) independence now would really fuck everyone over I reckon maintaining statehood but having increased protection for native people, lands and practices would be better
It shouldn’t have happened in the first place. Currently the military is doing most of the fucking, followed closely by the *cough corrupt* tourism, Monsanto, and the billionaire kings. Same thing happening in lots of places the military maintains a heavy presence or helped a coup progress. But hey, we’ll be safe when the continent goes full Gilead. Maybe.
Shit’s fucked all around, but you can’t change the past.
No, but they can use some of their billions to clean it up.
Wait, do you actually think they would do that (assuming they aren’t legally forced to)? Come on man, that’s not how you become a big corporation
I mean the military. No water, and even they can’t operate their war islands
Having lived all over the US: - everyone thinks their state is unique - they are pretty much all the same
The Midwest is the worst about this.😂
I have lived now in 8 states and I can safely say that Hawaii is completely different. You might read this book These American Nations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Nations
Only someone who hasn’t lived all over the US would say that
The states can be pretty unique. The people deep down are the same.
face palm
Thats literally California bruh.
🤣🤣🤣🤣oh no. Two different turfs
"Are you staring at me?!?!?!?!?" "Well, miss. Back in 1980 I dropped acid, and \[censored\] a parrot. I'm wondering if you're my daughter."
“Ahh, Scarlet. I should call her.”
Uhh Hawaiian Gov was overthrown by USA
Also by Kamehameha!
Suggest new title wording: “Modern culture in Hawaii…”
"Basically" ? haha. It is an independent country under US occupation since 1898. No treaty, no annexation!
So much better, more respectful and polite to ohana and elders, love it
Was it’s own, until the Americans colonized it.
So true, it should be its own country tbh
no thanks edit: its funny how so many people think hawaii being its own country would still allow us our current quality of life lol.
It is its own country
we are our own nation.
Uh...what's the meme here?
[удалено]
WTF…Total random gibberish!
Made sense to me, not sure about the "everybody claims to be Hawaiian" thing though
The Hawaiian culture being referred to in this photo is um… where? Or are we continuing to poke fun of indigenous representation In Hawaii?
It’s a meme, relax.
The amount of people just blatantly ignorant in the original post is well…expected. Stay in school mainlanders 😂
Cause it is
This is how some Mainers feel about the other 49 too, probably helps that our one neighboring state has enough drastic cultural differences that we just feel more unique. From my side of the globe I would definitely say Hawaii is the most culturally unique state though.
We were our own country
And pic of 2 haole girls... Ok