The Case for Hawaii as a Full Member: Unifying the United States

Introduction

The United States, often referred to as the United States, is a conglomeration of diverse regions. Alaska, California, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, among others, make up the rich tapestry of this nation. Hawaii, geographically separated yet politically part of the United States, is a sometimes contentious topic. Critics argue that the United States would be politically more united if Hawaii were treated as a contiguous state, akin to the other 48. This article examines the historical context, political implications, and the possible benefits of such a move.

Historical Context

While the 48 contiguous states share a common history and identity, Hawaii's unique journey highlights the political and social complexities of the nation. When the United Kingdom includes Northern Ireland, but not Scotland, the analogy can be made that the U.S. political union is not solely geographical. Hawaii's status as a state was admitted in 1959, making it the 50th state. However, its separation from the mainland raises questions about its integration and the unity of the U.S. as a whole.

Political and Social Implications

The political landscape of the United States is often characterized by debates over federalism, states' rights, and the idea of a truly unified country. Proposing Hawaii as a full member state could have significant implications:

Increased unity: If Hawaii were considered a contiguous state, it could bolster the sense of national cohesion and reduce political tensions between different regions.

Military and economic benefits: Hawaii's strategic location in the Pacific Ocean provides unique advantages in terms of military operations and economic activities, including tourism and trade.

Recognition of sovereignty: While Hawaii was once part of the Kingdom of Hawaii, it was a sovereign state before the U.S. annexed it. Treating it as a full member could recognize this sovereignty.

Critique and Arguments Against

Critics argue that the United States has never been fully contiguous from the beginning. California once stood as a lone state west of the existing Union, and even Alaska and Puerto Rico were once independent entities.

Arguments against treating Hawaii as a full member include:

Respect for historical actions: The United States annexed Hawaii, which some view as a colonial act. Acknowledging this history could be seen as a step towards acknowledging past mistakes.

Potential for sovereignty disputes: Hawaiian sovereignty activists advocate for recognition of native Hawaiian rights, which could be complicated by treating Hawaii as a full member.

Administrative challenges: While Hawaii is a state, it faces unique geographical and economic challenges, such as being geographically isolated and highly reliant on tourism.

Conclusion

Whether Hawaii should be considered a full member of the United States is a complex issue with historical, political, and social dimensions. While there are valid arguments on both sides, the case for recognizing Hawaii as a full member of the United States can promote national unity and address longstanding issues of sovereignty and recognition. As the nation continues to evolve, reassessing our understanding of the United States as a political and geographical entity can bring us closer to true unity.