The Maui wildfires in August 2023 have been fueled by false claims and conspiracy theories, with some suggesting that they were deliberately started as part of a land grab. The cause or causes of the fires are still unknown, but no real evidence has emerged suggesting they were deliberately started. Mislabeled videos and images spread across social media, as users called into question the origins of the fires, which have killed more than 99 people and destroyed over 2,200 buildings.
Conspiration theorists on varying platforms claim the fires were planned as part of a strategic effort to weed out elite land grabs. They claim that the August 2023 wildfires were caused by a “direct energy weapon” and that a book describing the disaster was published before it started. This fact check was originally published by PolitiFact, which is a fact check service.
The cause of a wildfire that ripped through the Hawaiian town of Lahaina and destroyed more than 2,000 homes and buildings is still under investigation, but rumours suggest the fires were deliberately started. As Maui grapples with one of the deadliest wildfires in recent U.S. history, it is also dealing with social media-fueled conspiracy theories. Climate change-denying social media accounts are exploiting the deadly wildfires in Hawaii to push conspiracy theories that high-energy lasers were used to create climate-friendly cities.
In conclusion, the Maui wildfires have become a source of misinformation and conspiracy theories, underscoring the shortcomings of social media firms’ enforcement policies following disasters.
📹 The Hawaii Conspiracy
On first glance, the fact that Hawaii should be part of the US makes little sense, but strong economic and military interests in the …
📹 Rumors, speculation and conspiracy theories; authorities trying to stamp out Maui disinformation
Governor Josh Green blasted social media posts that he and others say are spreading misinformation about the Lahaina fires For …
4:58 So for those who don’t know, the French guy’s demands are in reference to the French invasion of Honolulu of 1849 aka the Tromelin Affair. In the Treaty of 1843 with Hawaii, France had agreed never on any pretense to take possession of any portion of the Hawaiian domain. The French government told their new Honolulu consul in 1848 to be on their best behavior, but Guillaume Patrice Dillon who led the consul was like “Hehe NO”. So on August 12, admiral Tromelin arrived and found out about tariffs and Catholic persecution. Angered by American protestant missionaries, he worked with Dillon to make a list of ten demands for King Kamehameha III on August 22. Butttt the demands were not met by the 25th, so 140 French marines landed and sacked government buildings and general property in the city, causing 100K USD in damages (nearly four million in today’s money). They also took the king’s yacht, said “THANKS FOR THE FREE PARTY BOAT!” and sailed it to Tahiti. At first, the French government condemned what happened, but reconsidered it as more justified and did not make any reparations.
You neglected to mention that the President of Hawaii, Sanford B. Dole and his party were explicitly petitioning to be annexed by the US since they took over. The cause for annexation you mention was just the US taking its time to sign off on it. Sanford B. Dole’s cousin was James Drummond Dole who later would go on to found the Hawaiian Pineapple Company which would later merge with Castle & Cooke, Inc. which was one of the major sugar businesses that emerged after the overthrow of the monarchy and had previously acquired Standard Fruit & Steamship Company which was known for meddling in the government of Honduras. This merger created the modern Dole company of today.
“Hawaii is the biggest island in Hawaii” is reminiscent of the equally-confusing fact that in my home of Canada, Québec is the capital of Québec. In common speech, Québec City (or Ville de Québec in French) is the name, but legally it is just Québec. The same is true of New York, New York but that’s decently well-known (and NYC is not the capital city of the State of New York).
There’s a little more to the Hawaiian flag story than that: A Red Ensign with the Union Jack was given to Kamehameha I by Captain George Vancouver in 1793, who previously visited with Captain Cook in 1778-1779. However, Ireland wasn’t part of the UK until 1801, so this specific ensign didn’t become the current Hawaiian flag. So what did? Well, Scottish captain Alexander Adams of the British East India Company! The current flag was created by him as part of a China trip in 1817. At this time, he was part of Hawaiian Kingdom Navy. On his way to China, while stopping on Kaua’i for supplies, he gave Kaumualiʻi (last supreme ruler of Kaua’i and Ni’ihau) an ensign to raise at the port, as Kaumuali’i only had the Russian flag left behind from a failed Russian colony. Yeah, there was a Russian colony attempt. Basically, a German physician approached Kamehameha I to help fight the rebellious Kamuali’i, Kamehameha said no, they sailed to Kaua’i, Kaumuali’i was more than willing to become a Russian protectorate, the German promised him that Tsar Alexander would liberate Kaua’i and conquer the Hawaiian archipelago from Kamehameha, they built three forts, but turns out the Tsar never backed this German…so he was forced to leave in fall 1817.
Two quick notes: 1. “Hawaiian” refers only to ethnic Hawaiians. A citizen of Hawaii irrespective of ancestry is simply called an “Islander.” 2. Despite the annexation, Hawaii still feels admirably distinct from the rest of the US, moreso even than other “foreign-ish” states like CA, TX, NM, or LA. To this day politicians take their official photos wearing leis, and it’s expected to know at least some Hawaiian words and phrases.
The glottal stop isn’t just a pause button. It is a specific consonant sound, and the symbol for it is a letter in Hawaiian. The pause button is already the anglicized version of the word. I’ve never in my life heard someone say “Huh-why.” The final i still makes a sound in English. Most Americans say /həˈwaɪi/ and most Hawaiians say /həˈvɐjʔi/. There is no /həˈwaɪ/
At least from what I’ve learned, the Hawaiians were seen as much more civilized to the American government and public precisely because they rolled over to influence, and the reason Americans decided to annex was an inherent distrust of the queen believing she would push for less American influence on the islands, something that would be devastating to sugar farmers and military advances. TL;DR, it wasn’t all race, America was only explicitly motivated by race everywhere else (except maybe Alaska but even there the Inuit could be argued)
The history of how Hawaii and Texas became infiltrated by annexationists is somewhat similar to how Acre became Brazilian or how Hatay became Turkish. Very sneeky indeed. Nowadays, the international community would not recognize such sneeky attempts at landgrabbing. Which is why expansionist countries such as Russia have not actually grown in size under international law, despite having formally declared foreign lands to be annexed.
Hey, Tapakapa. I really do not want to worry you, however, I have noticed someone on YouTube seems to “borrow” some elements of your website. In fact, not only is his art styling very similar to yours, he also seems to be discussing almost the same topics you do. To add insult to injury, the websites narator has a voice with a tembre very similar to your own. It might also be nothing to worry about, since the narrator speaks exploding tree German and thus likely does not know English. Just thought I’d tell you anyway.
3:00 The land reform was intended by Kamehameha III to benefit the sovereignty of the people. Following the Paulet Affair in which the British occupied Hawai’i for 5 months before reinstating Hawaiian sovereignty, Kamehameha III privatized the land so that if another foreign power was to take over the nation, the land would be privately owned under the assumption that the foreign power would respect private land ownership titles. In reality, the aboriginal native Hawaiians did not fully understand the concept of land ownership (because they instead viewed land as something that could be owned and instead as something that must be cared for) and they ended up selling their land for well below value to foreigners who took advantage of the Native Hawaiians
What were the real options for an isolated country with no military? Remain independent? Does ANYONE think that was a pragmatic option? The US annexation of Hawai`i was illegal. No argument. But in reality does anyone think the alternatives were going to be better? What if Imperial Japan annexed the unprotected islands? Does anyone think they would have treated the native occupants fairly and with respect? How about Imperial Russia or the USSR after their revolution? How would that have gone? China didn’t have a significant foreign policy until after the 1940s so they weren’t an option. While the annexation was BS, the long-term outcome probably preserved more of original culture than any other colonial invader.
March 30, 1867, you’re a native Inuit living your life in your own country. It has a name and your people have lived there for thousands of years and on March 30, 1867 one white guy from across the sea decides to sell you, your country and everything in it to another white guy for $7.2 million dollars. Today we call it Alaska.
The whole “colonialism bad” perspective of Hawaiian history is a half truth. Most people are satisfied with this perspective however, and everyone tends is gloss over the “monarchies also bad” perspective. Another major factor in the Hawaiian kingdom’s downfall is the Hawaiian class system. The Ali’i view their people as property that they had rights to and, as a result, sold the Hawaiian people out to the foreigners for their own benefit.
8:05 the new lands resolution can’t even legally incorporate Hawai’i into the US. It was a joint resolution by congress. There was no treaty of annexation to give the grounds for Hawai’i being incorporated into the USA. The Hawaiian Kingdom is legally and de jure an occupied state by the USA similarly to how Kuwait was an occupied state by Iraq in 1990. The only difference is that Kuwait got its sovereignty back from Iraq through foreign intervention (with the USA’s help, but the USA won’t deoccupy Hawai’i)
I wonder how things would have turned out if they didn’t come under our umbrella, wonder if they would have taken up communism like some other parts of southeast asia, or how ww2 would have gone. I can’t help feeling that hawaii was better off getting stolen by the US, as in I bet the people there wouldn’t be in as good living conditions. Not that I think that negates the crime, but at least they’re in a pretty good spot now overall, at least compared to other groups that got everything stolen (and worse) like the native americans. The part of modern hawaii that’s pushing for independence is so misguided imo. Seems like it’d be better to let the past go, life’s hard enough without the chains of historic wrongs weighing you down, but I can’t understand what it’d be like so idk.