3/24/2026 at 11:30:44 PM
Interestingly enough the Kingdom of Hawaii actually beat this. They already had electric street lights by 1881 on Maui.Hawaii has a fascinating history being the first indigenous nation recognized by Western nations (until ofc it was illegally annexed by the US to use as a base during the Spanish War). They went from being one of the most technologically advanced nations to now having 50% of homeless people in Hawaii being native Hawaiians after having their land stolen from them and forced into indentured servitude on plantations
by culi
3/25/2026 at 10:47:19 AM
Godalming, UK (where I live) stakes a claim for having the world's first public electricity supply in 1881. I walk past the commemorative plaque on almost a daily basis. https://www.godalmingmuseum.co.uk/articles/electricityby darrenf
3/24/2026 at 11:56:31 PM
This seems to be the timeline.1881: The Birth of Hawaiian Electric
King Kalakaua meets Thomas Edison at his home in New York to see the incandescent light bulb in 1881. Iolani Palace becomes one of the world's first royal residences to be lit by electricity in 1886. Honolulu streets are lit by electricity for the first time in 1888. Hawaiian Electric Company, Ltd. is incorporated on Oct. 13, 1891.
by detourdog
3/25/2026 at 5:00:15 AM
Sun Yat Sen, the father of China, was educated in Hawaii when it was still a kingdom (at Obamas alma mater Punahou), and famously said it was during that time that he learned what civilized governance looked like. Back then, Hawaii was seen as something akin to how we looked at Japan in the 2000s or China today. A futuristic, socialist (free education, free healthcare) constitutional monarchy that blended elements of Europe, America, and Asia into its governance structures.Hawaii was so flush with productive sugar cane and so technologically advanced, that it was seen as a target by the American cartel there that it had to be violently toppled.
There's great movie footage of the first Waikiki electric street car heading up towards Diamond Head, taken by Thomas Edison when he visited Oahu. I get sad every time I'm on Kalakaua Avenue knowing that we could've had real public transit in Honolulu if it weren't for America.
by dluan
3/25/2026 at 4:55:42 AM
We weren't far behind in NZ, with the town of Reefton electrified in 1888.by EdwardDiego
3/24/2026 at 11:43:35 PM
Hawaiian Kingdom was only minority indigenous FWIW at the time it was taken by the US.The plantations also pre-date the US taking them over.
The elites promoted the sugar industry. Americans set up plantations after 1850.[44] Few natives were willing to work on them, so recruiters fanned out across Asia and Europe. As a result, between 1850 and 1900, some 200,000 contract laborers from China, Japan, the Philippines, Portugal and elsewhere worked in Hawaiʻi under fixed term contracts (typically for five years). Most returned home on schedule, but many settled there. By 1908 about 180,000 Japanese workers had arrived. No more were allowed in, but 54,000 remained permanently.[45]
For quite awhile, Hawaii was also the only state in the Union I know of with explicitly racist voting laws. It was not until the year ~2000 (Rice v Cayetano) that the rest of the races on the plantations (including again chinese, filipino, etc) could vote for all the public offices (hilariously in that case RBG showed her racist colors and dissented, denying equal voting rights guaranteed under the 15th amendment).
by mothballed
3/25/2026 at 12:46:09 AM
The elections they were not allowed to vote in was for a board that managed the interests of native Hawaiians.Those interests were the management of lands that were taken during the annexation, and later returned.
The situation is a bit more complicated than you are painting it. It is generally recognized in the civilized world that descendants of people who owned land have a claim to it, and people who aren't descendants generally don't get a say in its management.
---
There may be a US-specific legal reason for why that was the 'correct' SCOTUS decision, but there is no universal moral reason for why someone who is not a member of a polity is entitled to vote for the leadership of a polity that they don't belong to, and that has no power over them. In this case, there are two separate, overlapping polities - one is the state, and another is a subset of people in a state. One has power over all state affairs, the other only over the property of the polity. Non-members getting voting rights over the latter is like giving me a say in Zuckerberg's estate planning just because I live in his zip code.
by vkou
3/25/2026 at 1:09:36 AM
The Hawaiian Homelands are owned by the state, not the indigenous. And the office managing these affairs is a public office. The ethnic Filipinos, Chinese, whites, etc own that land as much as anyone else, and own that office as much as anyone else.The public owners grace the Hawaiians with a racist policy allowing their exclusive use at the expense of denying persons within the jurisdiction of the state equal protections under the law. But only at the graces of the other races allowing it, and at the grace of all races voting for the office managing these affairs. I think you are thinking of something like a reservation where the Hawaiians would own that land.
I'm of the opinion there is quite the chance, just like their racist voting policies were struck down, that someday someone of the wrong 'blood' applies to use that state land and they will challenge their denial under 14th amendment. So far I don't think anyone has bothered, but it is certainly on my bucket list for when I'm retired and have the time for a pro se case.
by mothballed