AH Challenge: A British Hawaii Much Like Singapore

[AmIndHistoryAuthor]

This thought occurred to me. What would it take to see a Hawaii that the British colonize before America gets to it, and then have an outcome making it much like the Singapore of today?

Obvously there are some differences. Hawaii is not on central shipping routes like Singapore. But it is strategic militarily. It is also ideal plantation land. And in the future it will be ideally located for airline routes between Asia and the Americas, as well as tourism.

And the outcome I'm most interested in seeing is of Hawaii as a Singapore, not a Hong Kong circa 1990. IOW, a successful independent nation. People who hold Singapore up as a model for the 3rd world often forget that its success is largely POSTcolonial. Under the British, Singapore was synonymous with dirty, dangerous, and heavily exploited. Postcolonial, it's synonymous with clean, safe, and well paid workers (if with incredibly strict laws, including vs unions.)

The people I need to hear most from are those with expertise in areas I don't have, Europeanists and esp British history enthusiasts. Esp those who thoroughly know the British PMs and foreign ministers in the relevant eras, namely when the British first encounter Hawaii up to the time of its independence post WWII. How could their actions wind up in annexing Hawaii and making it somewhat like Singapore?

And there may be some outcomes one might not expect. Whose to say the British wouldn't import mostly Indian labor rather than Chinese? Or whose to say you might see an outcome much like Singapore and Malaysia? Imagine Honolulu as a largely Chinese enclave surrounded by a Native Hawaiian state.

 

[Flocculencio]

The major problem is one you've already mentioned- Hawaii isn't on any major shipping lines. What makes Singapore unique is that it controls the second busiest shipping lane after the
English Channels. Without that it's just another primary products port.

If you hold Singapore you hold the Straits of Malacca. Hawaii doesn't have the same commercial value.

 

[Analytical Engine]

What Flocc said. It's a waystation and fairly good, plantation-wise, though the main reason to grab it would be for area denial...

 

[tallwingedgoat]

If British Canada were to have a longer Pacific coastline, for example if it had the Oregon or Alaskan territories, Hawaii would be an important stop over to Australia.

It's not difficult to envision a scenario where the British take over Hawaii. Whether that becomes something like Singapore really depends on the native independence movement, their management capability, and their economic orientation. Who's to say it wouldn't instead have something like a Mau Mau Rebellion.

 

[Monty Burns]

If British Canada were to have a longer Pacific coastline, for example if it had the Oregon or Alaskan territories, Hawaii would be an important stop over to Australia.

Well, in that case, Hawaii would be a more important coaling station or the like for the Empire - however that's nothing compared to the strategic and commercial value of Singapore as discussed above. Furthermore note that Canada-Australia trade would be rather limited, especially back then, as both countries would trade raw materials predominantly.

However, you're right that a substantially more important circum-pacific trade network at the beginning of the 19th century would increase the importance of Alaska. British Oregon is, however, insufficient for that.

 

[Falastur]

If British Canada were to have a longer Pacific coastline, for example if it had the Oregon or Alaskan territories, Hawaii would be an important stop over to Australia.

More important, but not important. Especially in the 19th Century. Cross-Canadian trade was not unknown but was hardly enough to sustain a supposedly thriving trading outpost. Most trade to Australia via the Americas is still going to go via routes which aren't near Hawai'i - the Cape, and then later on, the Panama Canal.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Hawaii actually is situated on a major shipping route - I don't know if any of you have looked at an atlas. Its important for transpacific trade for much of the 19th century and becomes more so by the 20th. In the days of sail it was important stop over for fresh water for ships. It has one of the best harbors in the Pacific, at the time, (once the mouths were dredged of course) Pearl Harbor. I would say that Honolulu Harbor could be the second, but what we see today isn't really present until post-1900.

With the advent of steamships it was a major coaling station. One problem is that transpacific trade between Canada and Australia is fairly meager, as Falastur says.

I do think that Fiji is a good example to consider. Exactly why the British would bring any laborers is questionable. If we stick with the idea of sugar being grown then one also should look at where Britain gets its sugar. I suspect that Australia and other possessions, not to mention the US, provide the overwhelming bulk. Sugar works for Hawaii if one takes into account the American market and domestic production at the time. Not to mention that it is being grown by businessmen of American descent.

Strategically, holding Hawaii does allow one to dominate the Northern Pacific. It doesn't really become important until the US acquires California and then it becomes necessary of trade with China and the Far East. Its possession would allow one to control the shipping lines approaching North America. Undoubtedly, it is important for transoceanic telegraph lines.

One could see the islands as being a vacation spot serviced by the Canadian-Pacific. Also I'm sure that kids are still caned somewhere there to this day.

 

[AmIndHistoryAuthor]

If British Canada were to have a longer Pacific coastline, for example if it had the Oregon or Alaskan territories, Hawaii would be an important stop over to Australia.

It's not difficult to envision a scenario where the British take over Hawaii. Whether that becomes something like Singapore really depends on the native independence movement, their management capability, and their economic orientation. Who's to say it wouldn't instead have something like a Mau Mau Rebellion.

Not too likely. IOTL, Queen Liliuokalani called off plans for a confrontation with US troops and American planters because she feared a bloodbath and saw it as useless, given American military power.

I realize Native Hawaiians don't have an entrepenurial (sp?) tradition. That's part of why I think there'd likely need to be a Chinese enclave in Honolulu.

 

[David S Poepoe]

I realize Native Hawaiians don't have an entrepenurial (sp?) tradition. That's part of why I think there'd likely need to be a Chinese enclave in Honolulu.

I think there are special circumstances relating to the Hawaiians being perceived as having no entrepenurial tradition. But it is present.

I would recommend looking at Paul Hooper's Elusive Destiny, The Internationalist Movement in Modern Hawaii. It basically dicusses the gist of the WI.