The usual lies and distortions that we expect from the Times. Just some examples:
>In 1893, Americans overthrew the monarchy in Hawaii, then later annexed the island.
A committee of native-born Hawaii citizens, Americans, and Europeans overthrew the monarchy, not the US government. The US didn't annex Hawaii until the Spanish War in 1898 demonstrated the islands' importance to the US.
>a series of Supreme Court rulings called the Insular Cases that began in 1901, five years after the court allowed “separate but equal” segregation"
The Insular Cases had absolutely nothing to do with Plessy v. Ferguson. The latter is no longer the law of the land; the former still are.
>Though some CHamoru tried to fight the Japanese, the overwhelming narrative holds that American soldiers were the saviors of Guam. Every year on July 21, the island shuts down for the Liberation Day Parade, a grand military procession down Marine Corps Drive to mark the anniversary of Uncle Sam’s return.
This and the following paragraph makes it sound like Guam's residents have been brainwashed into thinking that American soldiers were not, in fact, the saviors of Guam.
>The country wasn’t colloquially referred to as “America” until 1898.
This is so, so, so wrong that I can't even sputter about it.
Small islands are either part of bigger countries, or are protected by them. There is no alternative. One does not have to like it to accept it as the only realistic outcome. If Guam were not American, it would today be a Chinese possession with the entirety of its surface area garrisoned. Without the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans in the Pacific War, the Japanese rapes of native Guamian women would have continued forever.
> A committee of native-born Hawaii citizens, Americans, and Europeans overthrew the monarchy, not the US government. The US didn't annex Hawaii until the Spanish War in 1898 demonstrated the islands' importance to the US.
The native-born citizens in the Committee of Safety [0] were almost all second and third generation descendants of Americans. No ethnic Hawaiians were members.
While the committee was composed of private citizens, they acted with the ultimate goal of annexation with the United States. They were crucially supported by a contingent of US troops that surrounded the palace of the Hawaiian monarchy on the orders of the chief American diplomat, whose interests in annexation aligned with the committee. [1]
> The native-born citizens in the Committee of Safety [0] were almost all second and third generation descendants of Americans. No ethnic Hawaiians were members.
So because of their ethnicity, they don't count as "native" Hawaiians despite having been born on the islands with birthright citizenship. Got it.
One begins to understand why they joined the "Committee of Safety" that plotted the overthrow of the monarchy, the same monarchy that was planning to revoke the relatively liberal constitution.
>While the committee was composed of private citizens, they acted with the ultimate goal of annexation with the United States.
Correct. Annexation was something that most people, in the US and in Hawaii, expected during the 19th century would happen eventually. Kamehameha III in the 1850s asked for annexation, but it didn't happen because of US internal politics.
>They were crucially supported by a contingent of US troops that surrounded the palace of the Hawaiian monarchy on the orders of the chief American diplomat, whose interests in annexation aligned with the committee.
US consul John Stevens was a member of the committee that plotted the overthrow of the monarchy. He exploited the time gap between Honolulu and Washington to ask for the soldiers on US Navy ships in the harbor to march off the ships, parade through the city, then march back on. When Washington learned of what Stevens had done he was fired, but it was too late; the queen had been intimidated into surrendering.
And don't even bother to bring up the Blount Report, because I can bring up the Morgan Report. My larger point is to, when discussing something you obviously didn't know anything about before today, not try to refute someone else by citing superficial readings of Wikipedia articles that you, again, had never looked at before today and go "A-ha! Got you!" Just don't.
> So because of their ethnicity, they don't count as "native" Hawaiians despite having been born on the islands with birthright citizenship. Got it.
One of the first things you learn when you spend time in Hawaii is that you don't call yourself a Hawaiian unless you have indigenous roots. These were white Western businessmen with strong American ties. They represented a small minority of Hawaiian nationals, the vast majority of which were ethnically Hawaiian. [0]
> One of the first things you learn when you spend time in Hawaii is that you don't call yourself a Hawaiian unless you have indigenous roots.
I am aware of how widespread this blatantly racist practice is, yes.
>And please don't make unfounded assumptions about my experience and knowledge of Hawaiian history.
Taking you at your word, no doubt you are also a supporter of Kamehameha's admissions practices. There's a reason why the Bishop estate has consistently settled lawsuits challenging said practices despite the enormous financial cost; it knows very well that it will lose, both in the courts and in the court of national public opinion.
(This is now when you rush to Wikipedia to look up "Kamehameha School" and "Bishop Estate".)
>In 1893, Americans overthrew the monarchy in Hawaii, then later annexed the island.
A committee of native-born Hawaii citizens, Americans, and Europeans overthrew the monarchy, not the US government. The US didn't annex Hawaii until the Spanish War in 1898 demonstrated the islands' importance to the US.
>a series of Supreme Court rulings called the Insular Cases that began in 1901, five years after the court allowed “separate but equal” segregation"
The Insular Cases had absolutely nothing to do with Plessy v. Ferguson. The latter is no longer the law of the land; the former still are.
>Though some CHamoru tried to fight the Japanese, the overwhelming narrative holds that American soldiers were the saviors of Guam. Every year on July 21, the island shuts down for the Liberation Day Parade, a grand military procession down Marine Corps Drive to mark the anniversary of Uncle Sam’s return.
This and the following paragraph makes it sound like Guam's residents have been brainwashed into thinking that American soldiers were not, in fact, the saviors of Guam.
>The country wasn’t colloquially referred to as “America” until 1898.
This is so, so, so wrong that I can't even sputter about it.
Small islands are either part of bigger countries, or are protected by them. There is no alternative. One does not have to like it to accept it as the only realistic outcome. If Guam were not American, it would today be a Chinese possession with the entirety of its surface area garrisoned. Without the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans in the Pacific War, the Japanese rapes of native Guamian women would have continued forever.