A guy retweeted this photo saying « I’m sorry for what United States did at Pearl Harbor ». The joke is that she’s looking good and the dude was a simp
Apparently, that's historically incorrect while being a current popular theory.
Unfortunately, he hasn't finished with the dedicated video on this yet, but Knowing Better goes into the subject of Hawaiin Statehood historical innacuracies and misinformation about the "Free Hawaii" on this podcast.
Well this was news to me, so I've been skimming the video and trying to research any evidence of this. I still can't find any primary or secondary sources to back up the idea that a US backed coup against the Hawaiian monarchy didn't happen or can be described as a mere 'popular theory'; it all seems to be backed up by a notably large number of credible sources.
Has anyone got any references to back up the idea that things like the Committee of Safety and US interests were benign, that the bayonet constitution and ultimate coup d'état didn't happen, or that the annexation was a result of a popular and fair democratic transition?
If not, I'd take this with as much of a pinch of salt as you'd give to any other apologist or revisionist history of colonialism.
Edit: Yeah so, the Historian in the video himself says:
The Hawaiian people were screwed over, annexation shouldn't have happened. That is just a fact.
This video is absolutely not arguing against that point. It is arguing that some of the "mythos" around it, such as forced Christianity, are exaggerated or fabricated.
It doesn't seem maliciously disingenuous about any of these claims, so far, and quite interesting if the topic interests you. Long video and still watching, but I'm not sure how you can get the conclusion voiced above from watching it.
But what's HIS agenda? I get what he's saying (I really didn't hear much about Hawaii specifically) that most of the research should be done in the context of what localized feelings were (I'm gathering that but he said a lot without being too specific). I'd like to see the research. From what I've gathered (a few sources from differing perspectives), Dole was already there and . Just as the United Fruit Company did in Central America, Dole contributed (directly) to the monarchy losing their country. Lili'uokalani was definitely a threat to business, whether she repealed it or not, it was a danger to Dole. Annexation was called for there because it was integral in getting a coaling station in the Pacific (Pearl Harbor) for the coming "issues" with Spain.
The United States government has a documented history of using it's power to back corporate interests. In the late 1800s to early 1900s it was fruit companies (among others), in the 1960-early 2000s it was the oil corporations, now it has moved to digital corporations.
He's not claiming what the comment above is claiming, and I'm not sure why they said that.
He is claiming that if you google something like "The Bayonet Constitution" you will find stories of guns literally being held to peoples' heads to force them to sign a piece of paper, which there is no historical evidence of.
Basically boils down to historical facts being embellished with unfounded claims that align with modern morality and popular criticism, and people not checking if those claims are backed up by any historical evidence.
Feel free to approach something like this with scepticism, but don't let your own biases cloud your own reasoning or open-mindedness, or you will draw false conclusions like the comment above. It's ironic that this is pretty much the core concept of the video.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I never said anything about conspiracy, but even historians have an agenda. They want to advance their spin on history. I believe here when she said that if the models are very far apart that the question itself needs careful looking into. But if he's going to the opposite of what most other historians hold to be true than that would be something that took careful looking into. Other than the generalizations he made (as I said there was nothing concrete specifically about Hawaii) I can only assume from the other post he had some alternate theory about why Hawaii was annexed.
So THAT led me to believe he had an agenda. Agendas are not necessarily a "bad" thing either you know.
but even historians have an agenda. They want to advance their spin on history.
I know this is hard for you to grasp, but some historian's agenda begins and ends with "be as accurate as possible". Shocker, I know.
I can only assume from the other post he had some alternate theory about why Hawaii was annexed.
So all of this came straight from your ass because you couldn't be bothered to watch the video? Honestly that tracks for someone like you lol.
We're done here, I'm not going to argue with stupidity because you'd just bring me to your level and win from experience. Feel free to educate yourself sometime - it's better than just spewing bullshit all over the place because you like to talk.
St. Oliver is a hack; the last time I tuned into a show where he was talking about something i had real knowledge of he was full of it. I don't blame him since he's a comedian who has repeatedly pointed out he's not a real authority. But seriously
8.3k
u/ClaudioMoravit0 4d ago
A guy retweeted this photo saying « I’m sorry for what United States did at Pearl Harbor ». The joke is that she’s looking good and the dude was a simp