Mike Palij wrote: > However, was the revolution and the removal of the Queen > a popular revolt or was it a cynical power play by American > businessmen to maintain their hegemony in Hawaii while being > backed by the power of the U.S. military (U.S. Marines and > Sailors were brought in by the local U.S. authority in order > to "maintain order"; martial law was declared and, in essence, > the U.S. military supported the "revolutionaries")? I will leave > that question to those who are more familiar with the history of > Hawaii to answer.
There is a great little historical museum in Lihue, the airport city of the Hawaiian island of Kauai (I was there the last time APA was in HI). It is a bit off the beaten track (most tourists go to Oahu or Maui), and so gives, I think, a somewhat less "official" account of what happened n 1893. Going by that description, one is left in no doubt that there was no popular revolt against the Hawaiian monarchy. Indeed, the Queen was the main bulwark against US political hegemony (Americans had already seized economic hegemony). It was essentially a coup by US businessmen who created a "crisis" that the US military would then have to come in to "resolve." (Much the same tactic was successfully used by American immigrants to California in the "Bear Flag Revolt"of 1846 to seize the territory from Mexico. A version of the revolters' ensign, along with the (never-really-true) words "California Republic" remain on the state flag to this day.) > And I bet you thought that overthrowing foreign governments > was a recent U.S. innovation. No, no, I never thought that. Wasn't the US essentially founded on overthrowing a government? And then they tried (and failed) to overthrow the government of (what remained of) British North American (1812). (And let's not mention the governments of the "500 nations" that were already in North America before the European arrived -- okay, fair enough, Canadians did a fair bit of that as well.) And the US have mucked around in Mexico, Cuba (more than once), every single country in central America, several in the Caribbean, South America, Africa, Central Asia, South-East Asia, China, Japan and even Europe (if you include the two "World Wars"). In fact, I think one could argue that the US is the global overthrower-in-chief, taking over that role from Britain around the start of the 20th century. > (for Bonus Points: what role was play by the family that owned what would > become the > Dole foods brand?) > There remains a giant Dole "museum" (read: promotional theme park) on the backside of Oahu, complete with "informative" plaques extolling the foresight and wisdom of papa Dole. It's rather spooky, actually. I'd love to know what nickname the Hawaiians have for it. > Benjamin Franklin (1706; obscure Philadelphian - remembered in the > saying "It's all about the Benjamins!") > > Actually, Franklin was not originally from Philadelphia. He was born, raised, and educated (after a fashion) in Boston. He is one of the many Philadelphian "auslanders" described in a fascinating (if somewhat dated) book I'm now reading: /Puritan Boston and Quaker Philadelphia/ (E. Digby Baltzell, 1979), which purports to explain why it is that Boston, despite its authoritarian, sometimes brutal, Puritan beginnings, became the leading cultural and political city of the early US, while Philadelphia (the "other" major early American city -- New York didn't really get going until a bit later), with its early egalitarian and tolerant Quaker character, has never been able to generate many great national figures and civic institutions. Philadelphians will, of course, be annoyed by this, but the authr provides some pretty stark statistical contrasts early in the book. > Other notable events: > (1961) In his farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned > against the rise of "the military-industrial complex." > (NOTE: which appear to have gone unheeded) > > On the contrary, it seems to have been the blueprint followed by successive American powerbrokers (not to be confused with governments, though intermittently they go along for the ride) ever since. > And perhaps the most culturally significant event in the 20th century: > (1984) The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the private use of home > video cassette recorders to tape TV programs did not violate federal > copyright laws. > Which is, of course, why they had to make video tapes obsolete as fast a possible, and replace them with a medium that is much more difficult to record television shows onto: the DVD (which is now being made obsolete as well). > Make it a day. > Done! Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 [email protected] http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ ========================== --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
