How Hawaii was annexed by the USA

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,836
San Antonio, Tx
#41
Another way of looking at it is the Russian / Soviet propaganda view, which is that the US is not a traditional empire, because the native population was almost entirely killed off or absorbed.
The Native American population was not “almost entirely killed off”; some were “absorbed” (mainstreamed) and the rest live on reservations which are similar to independent countries but which do not control their foreign policy. They have their own police forces and court systems but appeals must go through the national court system which are governed by the US Constitution.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,719
Portugal
#42
The Native American population was not “almost entirely killed off”; some were “absorbed” (mainstreamed) and the rest live on reservations which are similar to independent countries but which do not control their foreign policy. They have their own police forces and court systems but appeals must go through the national court system which are governed by the US Constitution.
Far from my area of knowledge, but I have the idea that the Algonquian were the ones that suffered more. Are there any Algonquian reserves or speakers today, in the USA? I think that in Canada there are still some speakers.
 

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,836
San Antonio, Tx
#43
Far from my area of knowledge, but I have the idea that the Algonquian were the ones that suffered more. Are there any Algonquian reserves or speakers today, in the USA? I think that in Canada there are still some speakers.
Yes, quite a few, actually. There are many Algonquian languages, all derivatives of the same language. Here’s a list from Wikipedia:

of Historic Algonquian Speaking Peoples Edit

A'ani
Blackfoot Confederacy
Cisca
Cree
Croatan
Fauk / Menominee
Illinois Confederation
Lenape
Mahican
Maliseet
Maumee
Miami
Mi'kmaq
Nanticoke
Odawa
Ojibwe
Passamaquoddy
Pennacook
Penobscot
Potawatomi
Powhatan
Roanoke
Sauk
Sokoki
Sutaio
Thawikila
Tsitsistas
Florida

Most (not all) Native American tribes were affected by the “Indian Removal Act” in the 19th century, which is how Oklahoma became Indian Territory and later the State of Oklahoma. The tribes were just pushed west of the Mississippi.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,719
Portugal
#44
Yes, quite a few, actually. There are many Algonquian languages, all derivatives of the same language. Here’s a list from Wikipedia:

of Historic Algonquian Speaking Peoples Edit

[...]

Most (not all) Native American tribes were affected by the “Indian Removal Act” in the 19th century, which is how Oklahoma became Indian Territory and later the State of Oklahoma. The tribes were just pushed west of the Mississippi.
Thanks, found the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algonquian_peoples the list is long with many links, I will take a look.

When I wrote previously I was not thinking in the “Indian Removal Act” (had also to check this one in Wikipedia), but in the populations that existed in the initial 13th states, and their destiny even before the independency of the USA.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,768
#45
The Native American population was not “almost entirely killed off”; some were “absorbed” (mainstreamed) and the rest live on reservations which are similar to independent countries but which do not control their foreign policy. They have their own police forces and court systems but appeals must go through the national court system which are governed by the US Constitution.
Relatively speaking, there is a small native American population as a percentage of the entire population compared to most other areas in the Americas. Also, compared to other areas in the old world that were conquered, where most of the initial population remains. There is a small percentage of the population that is identified as native American. A large portion of the population has native American ancestery, but almost all is less than half native American.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
31,544
T'Republic of Yorkshire
#46
The Dole pineapple monopoly was a major factor and they largely controlled the Hawaiian legislature. However, if the US did not annex Hawaii, another country would have, most likely Japan. See post 9.
The US could not risk the power of Kamehameha falling into the wrong hands.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,768
#47
The US could not risk the power of Kamehameha falling into the wrong hands.
Yes, it was not in US interests to allow Japan to expand in the direction of the Americas.

It was also Dole etc. and US origin sugar planters. This was the period of the scramble for Africa. As Steve implied, US business interests were fine with the constitutional monarchy, which they could mostly control. If Japan are some European power took Hawaii, it would make it more difficult for them to operate.
 
Last edited:

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,836
San Antonio, Tx
#48
Relatively speaking, there is a small native American population as a percentage of the entire population compared to most other areas in the Americas. Also, compared to other areas in the old world that were conquered, where most of the initial population remains. There is a small percentage of the population that is identified as native American. A large portion of the population has native American ancestery, but almost all is less than half native American.
OK, so?
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,768
#49
You can say some of these tribes still exist, but they what is left is small. There isn't much left of many of the eastern tribes. Granted, they could have been partly killed off by disease, sold as slaves, and assimilated or intermarried with whites.

You look at how much more Mexico is native American culturally and genetically. Now there was a large agricultural population in much of Mexico. However, it does raise some questions that the native American population of California decreased to 20% of its former level in the 40 years after it came under US rule.
 

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,836
San Antonio, Tx
#50
You can say some of these tribes still exist, but they what is left is small. There isn't much left of many of the eastern tribes. Granted, they could have been partly killed off by disease, sold as slaves, and assimilated or intermarried with whites.

You look at how much more Mexico is native American culturally and genetically. Now there was a large agricultural population in much of Mexico. However, it does raise some questions that the native American population of California decreased to 20% of its former level in the 40 years after it came under US rule.
I believe that the majority of the “native” Mexican population is really “mestizo”, meaning it is mixed Spanish-native. There is a very small number of more or less “pure” native tribes in Mexico but the numbers are quite small. I did notice that in the Yucatán the answer to the question “Whaever happened to the Maya?” Was right there in front of me: Answer: nothing, they’re still in the Yucatán.

Incidentally, I don’t think native-Americans made very good slaves.

I don’t have accurate statistics - nobody does - but I believe that the vast majority of deaths among the native peoples in North America (and South America) were the result of diseases imported from Europe. The effect of this was devastating.

The Indian Wars in the West, often depicted in movies, were real enough but overall the numbers involved were not very big. In Texas, the Spanish (later the Mexicans) invited American impresarios to settle the land because there weren’t many Mexicans willing to come here and the government saw these settlers as a convenient buffer between the Mexicans and the Comanche and Apache tribes. Big mistake.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions