Question

I'm torn on this, however I'm leaning more towards no. The reason why I'm torn is because of how beautiful Hawaii is, and by making it a state, more people found out about it's beauty and started to visit, which made more people find out about it. However, that isn't the reason why Hawaii became a state. The USA acquired Hawaii so they could gain military advantages-- which came in handy for Pearl Harbor, & used it to benefit from sugar trading since their crops were very valuable. This also directly caused the wishes and opinions of Hawaiian people to be ignored at the time by violating Hawaiian sovereignty. The USA just wanted Hawaii so they could become more powerful, which is why I'm saying no, they shouldn't have annexed Hawaii.
rephrase the paragraph

Answer 1

I'm conflicted on this issue, but I'm leaning towards the position that Hawaii shouldn't have been annexed. On one hand, Hawaii's beauty is undeniable, and becoming a state has attracted many visitors, further showcasing its stunning landscapes. However, the primary reasons for its annexation weren't related to its natural allure. The United States acquired Hawaii primarily for military advantages, which proved crucial during events like Pearl Harbor, as well as for the lucrative sugar trade. This pursuit of power came at the cost of disregarding the wishes and sovereignty of the Hawaiian people. Ultimately, it seems the U.S. was more focused on its own interests rather than respecting Hawaii's right to self-determination, leading me to believe that annexation was unjustified.