Aloha! I have to write a discussion post today! My prompt is: "Should the U.S. have annexed Hawaii?" I don't need any help answering the question. I just need someone to look over my answer and make sure they can understand it. I know that I tend to be very wordy and flowery in my formal writing! Thank you!
I think that the overall annexation of Hawaii was a very beneficial move for the United States as a whole. It established the U.S. as an imperial nation, increased its territory, and provided bountiful land for agriculture.** However, I do not think the benefits excuse the methods used to acquire the island. I believe that the suppression of the Hawaiian culture, the destruction of the kingdom's natural environment, and the forceful means by which American planters seized control of the government were morally wrong and thus should not have occurred.
However, just because the means of control were not ethical, I do believe that the annexation was eventually beneficial to the people of Hawaii. I think that the country was fortunate to be controlled by a country that values itself on equality, and while the nation is far from perfect, I believe it better to be annexed by a country that gives so much power to its people than to be dictated over by an empire that could neglect and restrict its peoples in lesser territories*. I believe this to be so especially because of the trend of imperialism and expansionism that had taken the world by storm during the period. However, I think the annexation was beneficial for Hawaii for reasons other than the protection from other nations. I think that because the eventual state was supported and protected by an industrial, imperial power, it was able to flourish economically, and though for years the rich Hawaiian culture was buried, the modern-day United States has worked hard to restore the cultural diversity that blessed the world before its suppression. And while, again, this suppression can not be excused by attempts to reverse it, it can, I believe, help to encourage those who were wronged into forgiveness.
*This idea is referenced in Sources A and B.
In source A: "America’s annexation of Hawaii in 1898 extended U.S. territory into the Pacific. . . . For most of the 1800s, leaders in Washington were concerned that Hawaii might become part of a European nation’s empire. . . ."
In Source B: " It is quite evident that the monarchy had become effete and the Queen’s Government so weak and inadequate as to be the prey of designing and unscrupulous persons. . . . It is essential that none of the other great powers shall secure these islands. . . .This legislation should be, and I do not doubt will be, not only just to the natives and all other residents and citizens of the islands, but should be characterized by great liberality and a high regard to the rights of all people and of all foreigners domiciled there. . . ."
**This was referenced in Source A: "America’s annexation of Hawaii in 1898 extended U.S. territory into the Pacific. . . . For most of the 1800s, leaders in Washington were concerned that Hawaii might become part of a European nation’s empire. . . . A key provisioning spot for American whaling ships, fertile ground for American protestant missionaries, and a new source of sugar cane production, Hawaii’s economy became increasingly integrated with the United States."
The only thing that was confusing was that you used some words more than once. Maybe try finding synonyms and replacing them! 😁
Thank you! You have no idea how helpful that was! Are there any words in particular that were particularly overused?
Like: However, I believe, and I think were overused. The rest made complete sense! I hope you do great!
Your response provides a clear argument regarding the annexation of Hawaii by the United States, highlighting both the positive and negative aspects of this historical event. However, there are a few suggestions that can help improve clarity and conciseness without sacrificing the content.
Here is a revised version of your answer:
The annexation of Hawaii had both positive and negative consequences for the United States. While it expanded the country's territory and established it as an imperial power, the methods used to acquire the island were ethically questionable. The suppression of the Hawaiian culture, the destruction of the kingdom's natural environment, and the forceful means by which American planters seized control of the government were morally wrong and should not have occurred.
Despite the unethical means of control, the eventual annexation of Hawaii brought benefits to the people of the island. Being under the control of a country that values equality, although not perfect, was preferable to being ruled by an empire that could neglect and restrict its people. Additionally, the support and protection provided by an industrial, imperial power allowed Hawaii to flourish economically. While the rich Hawaiian culture was suppressed for years, efforts have been made in modern-day United States to restore its cultural diversity.
In conclusion, while the annexation of Hawaii had negative aspects, such as the suppression of culture and unethical methods of acquisition, it ultimately provided economic prosperity and protection for the island. The modern-day United States has made efforts to acknowledge and rectify the wrongs committed during that time.
Overall, these revisions maintain the substance of your response while making the argument more concise and easier to comprehend.