The Annexation of Hawaii
Queen Liliuokalani was dethroned after the revolt of the American missionaries when she tried to limit their power. So, the message this political cartoon is trying to convey is that Liliuokalani 's crown is worthless because she is not queen anymore. If a Hawaiian native that was loyal to her saw this, they would be shocked of how she was overthrown so easily and probably have anger towards Americans. If the queen herself saw this, she would be offended of how the cartoonist portrayed her and angry that her crown was taken away. One technique used in the cartoon is irony. This is because a prominent queen like Liliuokalani has been demoted, in a sense, all the way down the social chain. Also, that Liliuokalani cannot even get any money off of her crown. Another technique used in the cartoon is symbolism. Symbolism can be seen in this cartoon because of the crown. That very crown that she is trying to sell represents her power and authority being flushed down the drain and that it is not even worth anything. The cartoon does not support my view on imperialism because a nation can be forceful, but they do not have to strip away a country's ruler and annex it right there. That just is not right. However, Hawaii is better of being under the protection of America.
Citation: "Historical Political Cartoons About Hawaii
- Hawai'i Digital Newspaper Project." Historical Political Cartoons
About Hawaii - Hawai'i Digital Newspaper Project. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Feb. 2016.
<https://sites.google.com/a/hawaii.edu/ndnp-hawaii/Home/historical-feature-articles/political-cartoons>.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I suggest doing research and fact checking.
ReplyDelete"be shocked of how she was overthrown so easily and probably have anger towards Americans." - The U.S. was involved with the overthrow and violated international law, they placed the “Republic of Hawaii”in the position of power. "It is a well-known rule of customary international law that third States are under a clear duty of non-intervention and non-interference in civil strife within a State. Any such interference is an unlawful act..." Prof. Krystyna Marek
The Provisional gov’t (usurpers) were neither de facto nor de jure. Meaning they were only self proclaimed and not (defacto) the result of a successful revolution or (dejure) the result of a lawful election. The legal definition for the State of Hawaii who is in actual control of Hawaii is an Armed Force. Lawfully it cannot be a government not even a de facto one. It was created by a lawful U.S. gov’t but is limited the U.S. territory. Once it goes outside of U.S. territory and into another states territory it is now defined as an Armed Force or it’s creator hence the occupation.
"Hawaii is better of being under the protection of America." - That is quite ignorant and idiotic for you to say because Hawaiʻi was doing better off without the U.S. for example, Hawaiʻi was one of if not the most literate nation in the world before the overthrow. The palace was more technologically advanced than the White House. And the U.S. violated international law and the sovereignty of Hawaiʻi. You can try to justify this occupation as much as you want, but it does not excuse the illegality. Breaking international law is breaking international law regardless of its motives.
Fact:
Hawaiʻi is not now or has ever been part of the U.S., but under an illegal and prolonged occupation.
holy moly thank you for all of this info
ReplyDelete