[CS-FSLUG] NI: THINKING PAPER

[David M.]

On Sunday August 14 2005 9:19 pm, Eduardo Sanchez wrote:
> Hi David, thanks for picking up.

> > Hawaii ended up being a U.S state because the people of Hawaii wanted
> > statehood before and even after WWII so Congress made Hawaii the 50th
> > state in 1959. This didn't have anything to do with Japan attacking
> > Pearl Harbor (the event that drew the U.S into WWII) where Japan knew
> > they were attacking the U.S forces based there.
>
> Not what I meant. I did mean, how did Hawaii became a territorial part
> of the U.S.? I am talking about the Bayonet Constitution and the
> Hawaiian League in 1887, and the resulting events. This reeks of
> imperialism...

the Bayonet Constitution was organized and was secretly drawn up without any 
of the citizens knowledge by King Kalakua and a handfull of others and it 
severely limited his power. After 1 year he finally lost all power to the 
Bayonet constitution and a reformist party came into power.

As for the Hawaiian League, they were citizens from Hawaii that favored 
annexation and they soon ended up getting annexation after being rejected by 
Grover Clevelands administration a few times. It was actually Mckinley that 
finally got congress to agree to give the Hawaiians their wish and annex 
Hawaii. 

How does this reek of imperialism?

>
> > > What about the whole
> > > Cuban War, fought over an unjust accusation?
> >
> > If your referring to the Spanish-American war, the United States are
> > the ones that waged war on Spain to liberate Cuba in 1897. The reason
> > the US jumped in the war was for economic and humanitarian grounds,
> > more so on humanitarian grounds because it was thought at the time
> > that Spain sunk an American battleship that was sent to the port of
> > Havana to protect Americans and the Spanish in Cuba. Somewhere around
> > 250 or 270 American servicemen died on that boat. After the whole
> > conflict Cuba confirmed that the U.S was not acting to secure and
> > empire, but to protect Cuban independence.
>
> Please. Cuban independence to this day is an oxymoron. Each banana
> dictator that came after the Spanish dominion had to have the blessing
> of the U.S. government, up to and including Batista. As for Fidel, we
> all know he is a blood-thirsty tyrant that opress his people under the
> iron fist of Communism. The "humanitarian" grounds were farcical: All
> kinds of explanations and apologies were offered for the unfortunate
> incident of the maine but not, the U.S. would go to war.

They may be oxymorons, but your forgetting we are talking about the U.S being 
imperialistic. We did not take over Cuba so there is no imperialism there and 
they don't have a turd worth giving to the U.S so I don't see how protecting 
them from Spain was imperialistic.
>
> > > What about Puerto Rico becoming
> > > an "associated" state?
> > >
> > > What about the Philippines?
> >
> > The Philippines, Puerto Rico, and the island of Guam were ceded to
> > the Unites States as a result of the Spanish-American War.
>
> And how is this different from imperialism: annexating territories
> --unwillingly, see Emilio Aguinaldo-- overseas?

When the Spanish-American war was over the United states bought Guam, Puerto 
Rico and the Philippines in 1898 for 20 million dollars from Spain. See the 
Treaty of Paris. This led to the Philippine-American war, where the U.S took 
what they had rightly owned, because Spain did own the Philippine Islands at 
the time. In the Meantime while America was still fighing Spain in the 
Spanish-American war,  Emilio Aguinaldo tried to use the U.S and the 
Spanish-American war to his advantage and claim independence of the 
Philippines from Spain.

>
> > > What about Panama, a country whose secession from Colombia was
> > > abetted by the U.S. because they needed a puppet state in the Canal
> > > Zone?
> >
> > Not entirely true. the U.S and Great Britain drew up a treaty that
> > was ratified in 1901 and the treaty gave control of the canal
> > entirely to the U.S. This had nothing to do with Panama's revolt from
> > Colombia. Since then, control of the canal has been given back to
> > Panama.
>
> The point is, the revolt of Panama was engineered and abetted by the
> U.S. for the strategic purpose of getting a puppet state in the Canal
> Zone.
>
> http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/47/476.html
>
> Isn't that imperialism?

The U.S does not have authority or control over panama. Creating a puppet 
state does not fall under imperialism. We did not take over Panama, we aided 
them in their independence. :-) 
>
> > > What
> > > about Mexico and the Mexican-American War?
> >
> > Texas and Mexico started this war. There were U.S citizens living in
> > Texas at the time and the U.S feared that the state New Mexico (then
> > Mexico) and some southern parts of California would fall into Great
> > Britain or Frances hands.
> >
> > So after Texas defeated Mexico (on their own) in 1836 they organized
> > the "Republic of Texas" and Great Britain, France and the U.S gave
> > Texas Diplomatic recognition, but Mexico would not give up and, many
> > conflicts happened over the next few years. Then by demand of the
> > people of Texas, the then president was defeated by the citizens and
> > they joined the union in 1845.
> >
> > Then in 1846 disputes over the western boundary of Texas resulted in
> > the U.S declaring war on Mexico and in 1848 a treaty was signed to
> > make the Rio Grande the boundary of Texas, California and what is now
> > New Mexico.
> >
> > Then in 1853 the U.S finally purchased the rest of the territory from
> > Mexico which now forms the United States as it is today.
>
> And that's how a lot of imperialism works:
>
> 1. Move some of your nationals to someone's territory.
> 2. Use these nationals as excuse to wage war on the other country.
> 3. Beat the other country in war and annexate the territories.
> 4. Profit!

So now you also see it as a conspiracy theory?
>
> That's what the U.S. did with Hawaii and Mexico. That's what happened in
> Czechoslovakia in 1938, with Neville Chamberlain trying just to
> "appease". That's what a lot of us Paraguayans are fearing now because:
> a) We're having a lot of Cuban and Colombian immigration (surprise!!)
> and b) we have a lot of Brazilian settlements over all of our Eastern
> borders, and, the U.S. is not an imperialistic nation; but Brazil is.

Well, you couldn't count the Mexicans in the U.S today. Should I assume that 
Mexico is planning to try and take the U.S out and buy whatever it couldn't 
win?

> Thankfully, again, these actions belong to the past. The U.S. never was
> an imperialistic nation, but the U.S. had imperialistic episodes, all
> in the past, but those were not the norm (and that's why I'm able to
> point them out). Looks like after Teddy Roosevelt there were no more
> hints of overt imperialism on it.
>
> Look, no nation in the world is perfect and spotless in her handling of
> international relationships. The good ol' U.S. of A., despite of a sea
> of good intentions, surely had her share of mistakes. It's no good
> trying to deny them.

Of course we made plenty of mistakes, but when you make a decision and take 
actions that protects the interest of you and your family is that a mistake?

In the case of the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico and so on and so forth I 
view what the united states did as a strategy against future attacks on the 
U.S. by Spain.

as for Hawaii, it was legally annexed by request of the Hawaiian people (not 
people the U.S planted there).

I wrote a Book Meme on my journal and I claimed my closet full of history 
books didn't mean all that much to me, Well I take that back :-)

-- 
David M.