Challenge: Decolonised Hawaii

Thande

Donor
OTL of course Hawaii became a US territory and then later was directly incorporated as a state. But what different forces could have led to it being decolonised after WW2 a la the Philippines? Kept on as a close US ally, of course, probably on a short lead, but...

(I always wondered if this might be the end result of those timelines with Japan briefly occupying the islands during the war).

Granted you've got a much greater non-native population to consider but...
 
OTL of course Hawaii became a US territory and then later was directly incorporated as a state. But what different forces could have led to it being decolonised after WW2 a la the Philippines? Kept on as a close US ally, of course, probably on a short lead, but...

(I always wondered if this might be the end result of those timelines with Japan briefly occupying the islands during the war).

Granted you've got a much greater non-native population to consider but...

Your thinking of an POD of WWII or shortly after?

Maybe some odd ball group decides to move to Hawaii? Like polygamist mormons? Or the Amish?

And either resists themselves statehood or developes into a power group that would make the state of Hawaii embarassing to the US.
 
Almost ASB. Hawaii (and Alaska) were Organized, Incorporated, Territories.

This means that unlike The Philippines or American Samoa which were or are possessions of the United States, Alaska and Hawaii were, as territories, part of the incorporated national territory of the United States. Per the insular cases, US law makes a distinction between the incorporated territory of the US and unincorporated possessions.

Legally Hawaii had the same status as Arizona, New Mexico, and other territories before statehood.

That status is different than the status of overseas posessions.
 
You might need a fairly early POD making it less valuable to the US or business interests. Land unsuitable for plantations, or not viable as a military base. Something to keep large numbers of white colonists away.

I don't claim to be a biology expert, but how about a plague in the 1940s that devastates the crops that plantation owners rely on? When the plantations go bust they leave. Native Hawaiians agree to keep the bases on the same terms Filipinos agreed to w/ Clark AFB.
 
American Samoa is a US Territory just like Puerto Rico and previously as was Hawaii. So decolonization is not entirely in the realm of ASB. The Philippines were a US Territory also and they were set free. The difference in all of these is that Hawaii had the largest white population that had direct connections to the US. The islands were an economic and military asset.

Technically under the UN Charter Hawaii would have qualifed for decolonization, since there isn't that much separating it from British or French possessions of the time. There was a particular UN Committee or designation for aboriginal peoples - who's title completely escapes me - which the US willingly withheld the Hawaiian recognition on.

Its pretty much like now where the Hawaiians really should not be considered or thought of as being 'Native Americans'. Also, at least as far as the Oligarchy dominating the islands hoped, the Hawaiians would simply continue to die out.

US expansion west of the Appalachians in never considered imperialism, but it was.
 
Technically under the UN Charter Hawaii would have qualifed for decolonization, since there isn't that much separating it from British or French possessions of the time. There was a particular UN Committee or designation for aboriginal peoples - who's title completely escapes me - which the US willingly withheld the Hawaiian recognition on.

There is the fact that Native Hawaiians became a minority and White Americans gained a plurality pretty early on. Without major shifts in population movements, decolonization would go pretty clearly against self-determination.

For that matter, nothing short of losing the West Coast is going to get the U.S. to let go of Pearl Harbor.
 
Top