Final answer:
The justification of U.S. involvement in the overthrow of the Queen of Hawaii is debated, considering issues such as strategic interests and the right to self-determination. At the time, the U.S. sought to protect economic interests and secure territorial expansion, which has since been viewed as imperialistic and an overstep of power.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of whether the U.S. involvement in overthrowing the Queen of Hawaii was justified is a complex one that draws on historical morality, international law, and the geopolitics of the time. It is difficult to provide a straightforward answer, as justification can be seen through various lenses, such as strategic interest, the right to self-determination, or the legal standards of the time.
Historically, the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893 by a group of American and European businessmen, with support from the U.S. military, has been seen by many as an act of American imperialism. At the time, the U.S. was interested in increasing its influence in the Pacific and securing its economic interests in the Hawaiian Islands. This act led to the eventual annexation of Hawaii to the United States.
One could argue from a strategic perspective that the United States' actions were justified to protect its interests and expand its territory. However, from the standpoint of international law and the principle of self-determination, the overthrow was unjust, as it deprived the Hawaiian people of their sovereignty and self-governance.
When assessing historic events like the overthrow of Hawaii's Queen Liliʻuokalani, it is crucial to consider the values and norms of both the time period in question and the present. Modern perspectives often critique such actions as oversteps of power and violations of the right to self-rule. Still, contemporaneous views might have offered a different outlook on the legitimacy and necessity of such actions for national security and expansion.