Tag Archives: #LetHawaiiHappen

The Greatest Hawaiian Books of All Time (in English or translation)

I donʻt include many recent books – only two from the 21st century – because their legacy has yet to be determined.

  1. Samuel Kamakau, Ruling Chiefs of Hawai’i – The Sheer volume of history in this tome makes most other work pale in comparison. Kamakau also issues stern warnings, even to the King, of excessive Western influence.
  2. S.N. Haleole, Laieikawai – Translator Martha Beckwith (author of the definitive book The Kumulipo) had this to say of Haleʻoleʻs book:

    Unknown

    La‘ieikawai is a Hawaiian romance which recounts the wooing of a native chiefess of high rank and her final deification among the gods. The story was handed down orally from ancient times in the form of a ka‘ao, a narrative rehearsed in prose interspersed with song, in which form old tales are still recited by Hawaiian storytellers. It was put into writing by a native Hawaiian, S.N. Hale‘ole, who hoped thus to awaken in his countrymen an interest in genuine native storytelling based upon the folklore of their race and preserving its ancient customs – already fast disappearing since Cook’s rediscovery of the group in 1778 opened the way to foreign influence – and by this means to inspire in them old ideals of racial glory.Hale‘ole was born about the time of the death of Kamehameha I, a year or two before the arrival of the first American missionaries and the establishment of the Protestant mission in Hawai‘i. In 1834 he entered the mission school at Lahainaluna, Maui, where his interest in the ancient history of his people was stimulated and trained under the teaching of Lorrin Andrews, compiler of the Hawaiian dictionary, published in 1865, and Sheldon Dibble, under whose direction David Malo prepared his collection of “Hawaiian Antiquities,” and whose “History of the Sandwich Islands” (1843) is an authentic source for the early history of the mission. Such early Hawaiian writers as Malo, Kamakau, and John Ii were among Hale‘ole’s fellow students. After leaving school he became first a teacher, then an editor. In the early sixties he brought out La‘ieikawai, first as a serial in the Hawaiian newspaper, the “Kuokoa,” then, in 1863, in book form.

  3. Moses Nakuina, Wind Gourd of La’amamao – UH Mānoa Professor Niklaus Schweitzer says:

    Unknown-1

    The Wind Gourd of La ‘amaomao enables the reader to understand important values of pre-contact Hawai’i, such as the role played by the ideal attendant of an ali’i, which was characterized by a caring attitude both towards the lord as well as towards the maka’ainana, the common. ers, and which included expertise in a variety of useful skills, such as canoe carving, canoe sailing, fishing, bird catching, and a host of others. Generosity, kindness, loyalty, honesty, justice, filial piety, patience, are values of old Hawai’i emphasized in this saga which was considered sig.nificant enough to be published in several versions in Hawaiian and English, beginning with Samuel M. Kamakau’s serial, Moolelo no Pakaa (1869-1871), in the newspapers Ke Au Okoa and Ka Nupepa Kuokoa. The present version by Moses K. Nakuina is based on Kamakau but draws from a number of other sources as well.

     

  4. Davida Malo, Hawaiian Antiquities/Mooolelo Hawaii – While some might put this first, as its importance is unquestionable, itʻs more of an anthropology than a history, as Malo seems to dissect and critique Hawaiian culture. He had the “zeal of the newly converted” as Emerson put it, and it shows. Itʻs still crucial for all scholars of Hawaiian studies.

  5. Lili’uokalani, Hawai’i’s Story – A first-hand account of the most important event in Hawaiian history, from its most aggrieved victim – the Queen shows tact and grace beyond what can be expected.

  6. Noenoe Silva, Aloha Betrayed – the first very theoretical book on Hawaiian history and politics, Silva invokes Spivakʻs question “Can the subaltern [the oppressed underclasses] speak?” and goes beyond it to articulate the ways in which they do.

  7. John Papa I’i, Fragments of Hawaiian History – 

    Unknown-2

    Iʻi was the patrician who chided the upstart Kamakau, and told us in incredible detail how it really was in the time of Kamehameha II.

     

  8. Mary Kawena Pukui, Olelo Noeau – Of all Pukui’s work, this is perhaps the most valuable, because the meanings  – the kaona – of Hawaiian proverbs may have been lost without it.

  9. Joseph Poepoe/Steven Desha, Mooolelo no Kamehameha/Kekuhaupio – So apparently Desha plagiarized (if such a concept exists in Hawaiian thought) from Poepoe, whose work is yet to appear in published form. It is still a valuable supplement to Kamakauʻs account of Kamehamehaʻs conquests. The Kamehameha Schools Press English translation is called Kamehameha and His Warrior Kekūhaupiʻo.

  10. Haunani-Kay Trask, From a Native Daughter – 

    Unknown-3

    A masterpiece according to Alice Walker, author of The Color Purple, a mere collection of speeches according to others; its impact cannot be denied. It galvanized the Hawaiian movement in a way no other book has.

  11. Lilikala Kame’eleihiwa, Native Land and Foreign Desires – While my own research opposes some of her conclusions on the Māhele, her work on Hawaiian metaphors will stand as a lasting contribution to Hawaiian perspective.

  12. Keanu Sai, Ua Mau ke Ea: Sovereignty Endures – 

    Unknown-4

    It’s a bit hard to find, but Sai’s contribution to revising Hawaiian history cannot be denied. This is also a useful primer on occupation and the legal aspects of Hawaiʻi’s history and status today.

  13. Pi’ilani, Kaluaikoolau – The heartrending story of Piʻilani and Koʻolau has been recognized by W.S. Merwin and many others. Gary Kubota’s play is only the most recent tribute to this moving account of a familyʻs resistance to the “Pu Ki” [PG: Provisional Government].

  14. John Dominis Holt, Waimea Summer – Holt seemed often to feel uncomfortable in his own skin, with frequent references (including in The Sharks of Kawela Bay) to his fair skin and blond hair, despite being nearly half Hawaiian. But this may have been what allowed him to write about the hapa-haole and Hawaiian experience with such skill; probably the only book to include pidgin, Hawaiian language and Faust.

15 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

The Rule Change

The effort for Federal recognition of Native Hawaiians for the purposes of creating a governing entity went through three stages, or attempts: The Akaka Bill, direct recognition by the Department of Interior and the rule change.

Dept. of Interior (DOI) Hearings:

https://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/interior-considers-procedures-to-reestablish-a-government-to-government-relationship-with-the-native-hawaiian-community

In this latest (and what seems to be the most successful) attempt DOI looked to reestablish government-to-government relationship between Federal government and Native Hawaiian community. On June 18, 2014, the DOI stated,

The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) is considering whether to propose an administrative rule that would facilitate the reestablishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community, to more effectively implement the special political and trust relationship that Congress has established between that community and the United States. The purpose of this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) is tosolicit public comments on whether and how the Department of the Interior should facilitate the reestablishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community. In this ANPRM, the Secretary also announces several public meetings in Hawaii and several consultations with federally recognized tribes in the continental United States to consider these issues.

Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell stated “The Department is responding to requests from not only the Native Hawaiian community but also state and local leaders and interested parties who recognize that we need to begin a conversation of diverse voices to help determine the best path forward for honoring the trust relationship that Congress has created specifically to benefit Native Hawaiians.” Public hearings throughout Hawaii, from June 23 to August 8, 2014, which I wrote about in the Nation magazine, asked 5 “Questions to be Answered:”

  1. Should the Secretary propose an administrative rule to recreate a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community?
  2. Should the Secretary assist the Native Hawaiian community in reorganizing its government?
  3. What process should be established for drafting and ratifying a reorganized Native Hawaiian government’s constitution or other governing document?
  4. Should the Secretary instead rely on reorganization through a process established by the Native Hawaiian community and facilitated by the State of Hawaii, to the extent such a process is consistent with Federal law?
  5. If so, what conditions should the Secretary establish as prerequisites to Federal acknowledgment of a government-to-government relationship with the reorganized Native Hawaiian government?
Chang_Williamson _1

Prof. Williamson Chang

On September 29th, 2015, the DOI released the rule change. UH Law Professor Williamson Chang released the following statement in response:

The Department of Interior issued its long awaited proposed rule as to a Native Hawaiian Governing body. It was not much. The Federal Government is giving very little. If this is the last word on the federal government and Hawaiians, from the point of view of the United States’ the history of Hawaii ends with a “whimper not a bang”
1. It starts by noting that only the written comments counted, not the vehement oral testimony.
2. It is premised on false history: At page 6 of the long document, it states the Republic of Hawaii ceded its lands to the United States and that Congress passed a joint resolution annexing the Hawaiian Islands. Accordingly, all that follows flows from a flawed premise: The United States acquired the Hawaiian Islands and has jurisdiction. Moreover, it claims that the United States has title to the crown and government lands.
3. Even so, it gives very little. It would make a consenting Native Hawaiian government “just like” a tribe, but not a tribe.
4. The law that applies to tribes would not apply to the Hawaiian entity. Congress would have to explicit[ly] write Hawaiians in to Indian programs—just as it is today. No gain.
5. It admits that the purpose of the proposed rule is to protect Hawaiians from constitutional attacks on Hawaiian-only entitlement programs. The Department of the Interior, however, does not control the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court would still be free to strike down Hawaiian only programs if it so desired.
6. The Hawaiian governing entity gets no lands by this proposal
7. The proposal does not affect Federal holdings or title to the Crown and Government lands.
8. There is to be no compensation for past wrongs.
9. The rule limits the Hawaiian government to Hawaiians only.
10. Only one Hawaiian government can establish a relationship with the Federal Government under this proposal.
11. It precludes federal recognition of a restored Kingdom of Hawaii, or Provisional Government that would become a State either as a Kingdom or any other.
12. The Hawaiian Government cannot be in violation of “federal laws” such as the prohibition on ‘titles” in the U.S. Constitution—thus no quasi-Kingdom either.
In summary—and this is from a very brief reading. I may be in error, I may have overlooked various important sections, but in the name of getting this to you as soon as possible. Here is the link to the proposal, its supporting documents and frequently asked questions.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking read:

The U.S. Department of the Interior is proposing to create an administrative procedure and criteria that the Secretary of the Interior would apply if the Native Hawaiian community forms a unified government that then seeks a formal government-to-government relationship with the United States.  Under the proposal, the Native Hawaiian community — not the Federal government — would decide whether to reorganize a Native Hawaiian government, what form that government would take, and whether it would seek a government-to-government relationship with the United States.

The proposal, which takes the form of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), builds on more than 150 Federal statutes that Congress has enacted over the last century to recognize and implement the special political and trust relationship between the United States and the Native Hawaiian community.  The NPRM comes on the heels of a robust and transparent public comment period as part of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) process that began last year and included public meetings.  More than 5,000 members of the public submitted written comments to the ANPRM, and they overwhelmingly favored creating a pathway for re-establishing a formal government-to-government relationship.

Members of the Hawai’i Congressional delegation predictably responded in favor of the rule change, as did Governor Ige. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s statement was perhaps the most substantive:

Many indigenous groups in the U.S. have the right of self-determination, and today’s announcement acknowledges that that right also belongs to the Native Hawaiian people, one of the largest native communities in the country. These rules incorporate over 5,000 public comments submitted to the Department of Interior (DOI), and should they be adopted, the Native Hawaiian community will have the option to re-establish a unified government and self-determine their future relationship with the federal government. I encourage all interested parties to submit their comments to DOI during the 90-day public review period to ensure a collaborative final ruling.

The list of candidates for delegate to the constitutional convention was released by Na’i Aupuni the next day. It can be viewed here, but prominent candidates included John Aeto, Keoni and Louis Aagard, OHA trustee Rowena Akana, former Mayor Dante Carpenter, Prof. Williamson Chang, Jade Danner, Prof. Lilikala Kame’eleihiwa, Senator Brickwood Galleria, Adrian Kamali’i, Sovereignty leader Dennis “Bumpy” Kanahele, Colin Kippen, Prof. Daviana McGregor, former OHA administrator Clyde Namu’o, and Native Hawaiian Legal Corp. director Moses Haia, among many others.

There is a question of whether the rule change gives the kind of legal protection that was the point of Federal recognition, or if it is merely a Federal sanction of a process already happening. The Hawai’i Independent ran a story questioning the validity of the rule change:

“We have to remember that this process started with the State of Hawai‘i, not the Hawaiian people,” [Andre] Perez told The Independent over the phone. “Hawaiians did not initiate or pass Act 195, which created Kana‘iolowalu. The state legislature did, and gave the governor the power to appoint members to the commission. True self-determination does not come with a state-initiated, state-controlled process like this.”

Keanu Sai happened to speak to my class the day after the rule change. As I pondered the question of whether this was a victory for the Fed Rec set, it seemed to have no effect on Sai’s view that it was simply more Federal legislation inapplicable in foreign (Hawaiian) territory.

2 Comments

Filed under academia, Education, Globalization, Hawaiian history, intellect, law

Interview with George Cleveland, reconciliation advocate and grandson of President Grover Cleveland

This is the third in my interview series. In the first two posts, I speak with publisher Ikaika Hussey and “super-teacher” Amy Perruso. I met George Cleveland through Kahu Dr. Kaleo Patterson, with whom Cleveland has done work on reconciliation, a topic about which I’m very keen.
‘Umi Perkins: Can you tell us (as briefly or extended as you like) about your background? I understand you went to prep school in my wife’s hometown, for instance.
George Cleveland: I was born and raised in Baltimore, Maryland. A wonderful town even though back then people used to cringe when you said you are from Baltimore. ​

George Cleveland often stands in as President Cleveland for historical reenactments

​It was a pretty sheltered upbringing that changed a lot when I got out of town and went to boarding school in Lenox, Massachusetts. It was an unusual school in that it was extremely culturally diverse for that time; the late 1960’s. We had what became the only seriously successful program for Native Americans in an eastern prep school. Interesting that at that time, there were around 8 prep/boarding schools in Lenox. Now there are none. Without significant endowments, even the oldest school couldn’t make it through the 70’s.
I lived in Boston for a couple of years after high school and moved to New Hampshire. Among other things, I worked as a professional clown, was backman on a lobster boat and sold waterbeds. College and I never seemed to get along too well.​
How did it come to be that Grover Cleveland’s grandson is so young and spry in 2015?
​Who me?? My family stretched out the generations. Grover Cleveland was born in 1837. He married my grandmother in the White House in 1886. She was 21… Grover knew her prenatally as she was the daughter of his law partner in Buffalo, NY. My father was born in 1897. He met and married my mother in 1943 when she was teaching his children from his first marriage. We dropped two generations.​
​Oddly, I am always asked what he was like. He died in 1908, so our paths did not cross. My grandmother died in 1948, so I just missed knowing her.
I like to remind people that I had TWO sets of grandparents. My maternal grandparents were from a tiny village in Scotland. My grandfather went to sea when he was 14 and worked his way up to captain.​
I find it interesting that you, like Lorrin Thurston’s grandson (who is still alive) seem to side with your grandfather. You’ve said things to that effect.

​Well…he was right!

It can be a little tricky siding with someone from that long ago whom you did not know personally. But…it is my understanding that my grandparents and Queen Liliuokalani admired each other. And I know that one of the first things Grover tried to do when he came back into office in 1893 was to get the overthrow overthrown. AND I know that not seeing the Kingdom reinstated was one of the big disappointments of his life. ​

​When I speak as part of Grover’s ohana, I try and keep it to what I know from historical record and not what I think he thought. That being said, it is my understanding that when news reached him that the Queen would not be reinstated, he said something to the effect of, “So, Hawai’i is ours.” ​I see this simple statement as sadness that “manifest destiny” and greed had won out over what was just and right.

–there is a bit of irony that I am writing this only two days before Liliuokalani’s birthday and on the day when President Obama is about to officially rename Mt. McKinley in Alaska.
Like you, I have some illustrious ancestors, though no presidents:). A great-granduncle of mine is Lew Wallace, for instance, the man who wrote Ben Hur. My grandfather’s name is Wallace Perkins, after that line of the family. I’ve become somewhat obsessed with him. How much do  you think ancestry shapes us?

​That is a really tough question to answer. Would I still be a nice guy if a grandfather had been a serial killer? How would that guilt and shame inform my life choices? How hard would it be to move beyond those feelings? Would my life involve atoning for that?

I don’t know what it’s like NOT to be the grandson of a President. It has been a burden at times, but I’m way beyond that now.

Somewhere ALL of our ancestors did things we may not be proud of. Maybe the simple answer is to learn from their mistakes and do what we can to make the world more livable for more people. Do it because it’s the right thing to do and not an offshoot of ancestral guilt or shame.

I’m a White Anglo Saxon Protestant of Northern European and Celtic descent as far back as the Dark Ages. I think it’s safe to say that this race has done more to impact this planet than anything since the Big Bang. So much potential has been misplaced…
What’s your plan? (vague question, I know) – by that I mean what has driven you in life?
​Sheesh… This has changed a lot over the years and will probably change a few more times. ​
​I’d like to be a simple beacon to help people off the rocks…​
Can you talk about your work on reconciliation (which is how we came to meet)?

​Around 10 years ago when I was first contacted by Kaleo Patterson and Ha’aheo Guanson, I knew next to nothing about Hawai’i and its history. When I first visited (2006?) I was incredibly honored to stay with people like Kekuni Blaisdell and Meleanna Meyer. The things they showed me; the people I met, melded into my soul.

Kumu John Lake’s halau did a presentation for me. I sat in a chair and watched slackjawed as Kumu John translated for me in my ear. It was quite simply one of the most profound experiences of my life.

Reconciliation. It’s that which makes us able to move forward unshackled. It’s a vital process whether from one person to another or one people to another.​
​It would be presumptuous of me to say what I think is right for the Hawaiian people. ​BUT…I DO have some thoughts. The United States has done a bang up job of banging up Hawai’i; probably more than any other country. I believe the US has a moral obligation to continue and COMPLETE the removal of all potentially dangerous ordnance from Hawaiian lands and waters. And all the junk that goes with it. I haven’t been there, but I’d like to see substantial effort (money) put into doing whatever is necessary to get Kaho’olawe back together.
I love space exploration, but that doesn’t mean putting a telescope on a sacred site. If I have to pee in New York City, I don’t do it on the steps of St. Patrick’s Cathedral.
Reconciliation isn’t just about trying to mitigate and correct past wrongs by governments and armies. Reconciliation includes reaching out to friends, neighbors, strangers, smelly people and seeing what we can do for them right NOW. Just be there for someone in some kind of helpful way.
Promote peace. One of my great mentors defined “peace” as “the absence of emotional urgency”. It works for me. –when I let it!
What are your thoughts on history? I know you were the keynote speaker at National History Day, for example, which my students participate in.
​What is more important than history? It’s what we are as individuals and as humans. Even if you have no idea of your lineage, you still have history. It informs our present and our future.
There are some GREAT history teachers out there at the middle and high school levels. They are trying to teach history not as a linear progression of dates to be memorized, but as a living thing that is with us now. These teachers are doing what I see you trying to do, Umi. I have a good friend in Buffalo, NY who is trying to teach the teachers how to better befriend history; he takes them on field trips all summer.
I think it’s important for people to realize that NO ONE has a boring history. I work in a senior center. We have many participants who saw horrible and dramatic action in battle. We have many participants who saw incredible life changing events on the homefront. Some of those homefront stories are pretty dramatic too.
National History Day is a tremendous program. But as I said when I spoke to a group there, how many who have won History Day awards will get the same reception when they get home as the football team ​
​would?? Will the mayor recognize their feat? Will they ride through their village on the fire truck? Gotta fix that…​

Any final thoughts – for Hawaiians or others?
​My final thoughts are ones of gratitude for the patience and understanding shown to me by the people I’ve met who are working FOR Hawai’i. Not just for preservation, but for continuation.
The spiritual nature of things is more palpable in Hawai’i than any place I’ve ever been.
I have very close friends in Hawai’i, even if it’s only a Facebook friendship at times. AND, I’ve gotten flamed a few times for hanging out with and agreeing with some of them!
I send much Aloha to all of them, to all your readers, and to you, Umi. Mahalo for all you are doing.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Response to Gerald Smith’s “Host Culture in Hawaiʻi is just a Myth”

Gerald Smith was right and wrong in his Civil Beat article “Host Culture in Hawaiʻi is just a Myth.” Hawaiians may not be the “host” culture, and it’s true as he says, that neither Hawaiians nor other non-indigenous groups are here by choice, nor by invitation. In fact, Kamehameha II gave the first group of foreigners to ask permission, the Congregationalist missionaries in 1820, a probationary period of one year. The deadline for reviewing their stay was neglected and within a generation they were entrenched in government and the economy. I often wonder if the term “host culture” is merely a convenient one for the tourism industry, as it creates the impression – a questionable one – that tourist are welcome guests. Smith is wrong, however, on several counts. His claim that “Many Native Hawaiians would like us all to leave and restore the kingdom that was taken away by the United States,” is unsupported by any evidence. Just as the Hawaiian Kingdom never ejected even its most troublesome residents, the Hawaiian movement has not called for non-Hawaiians “all to leave.”

10970162_10152697519698333_1605275414_o

Kūkaniloko march opposing Stryker brigade, 2006. Thatʻs me looking in the wrong direction as usual. Photo by Michael Puleloa

What is problematic is Smith’s assertion that everyone in Hawaiʻi is equal in the eyes of the law. Putting aside the quite valid claims of independence advocates for the moment, the State of Hawaiʻi recognized Hawaiians as the Indigenous people of Hawaiʻi in 2011. Over one hundred pieces of Federal legislation, beginning with the 1921 Hawaiian Homes Commission Act do the same. To simply brush aside these forms of recognition that Hawaiians are unique in the eyes of the law, is troublingly close to what has been called “white indigeneity.” What can be said of narratives of white indigeneity is that they are widespread. Such claims are seen in New Zealand, Australia, the US and elsewhere. What cannot be said is that they are taken seriously. I happened to observe the phenomenon in the New Zealand parliament: one conservative member cited the respected historian Michael King to support his contention that pakeha (Caucasians) were Indigenous. To this another member asked if the “honorable member” was familiar with the UN definition of Indigenous.

Smith establishes his kamaʻāina credentials by stating that he observed the attack on Pearl Harbor. If this is the case, he certainly did not take Hawaiian history in school, even if he went to school here, as it wasnʻt required until the 1970s. So one is left to wonder where his understanding of Hawaiian history comes from. Likely its from Gavan Daws’s Shoal of Time, still the most read general history of Hawaiʻi. The book’s chapter on Statehood is entitled “Now we are all Haoles.”

Smith’s contention that “the people who live here voted to become a state, so some will never accept their fate.” was roundly and very publically critiqued on its 50th anniversary in 2009, with very little in the way of counter- arguments.  The link in his article that ostensibly supports this “fact” takes the reader to history.com – as Hawaiian history is not well-known in Hawaiʻi, citing an external source does not inspire confidence in the reader. This was taken into consideration by the UN; in 1996 the Star bulletin headline read “UN may find statehood illegal.” It was even tacitly recognized by the local majority. There are fireworks in Waikiki every Friday, but none on the 50th anniversary of statehood. Apparently Friday is a more important event.

2 Comments

Filed under Environment, Hawaiian history, law

The Five Most Pervasive Myths about Hawaiian History

In this post, I start with the five most egregious misconceptions about Hawaiian history (some are admittedly debatable) – Iʻll be expanding it to ten in the next couple of days.

5. Kalākaua was powerless after the 1887 Bayonet Constitution.

Historian Ronald Williams Jr. has uncovered strenuous debates between Kalākaua and the legislature in which he pushes hard for returning power to the throne – quite a different King from the one commonly portrayed as a broken man.

King David Kalākaua (1874-1891)

King David Kalākaua (1874-1891)

4. The 1893 overthrow was “US-backed”

Louis “Buzzy” Agard has found evidence that the US planned the overthrow ahead of time. Agard found an encoded message (and then found the key!) from the State Department telling the USS Boston to attack ports in Hawaiʻi, ending in Honolulu. That makes it a straight-up US overthrow.

3. Kamehameha V was a despot

According to A. Grove Day in History Makers of Hawaii:

[Lot Kapuaiwa] believed that the example of his grandfather, KAMEHAMEHA I, gave him the right to lead the people personally, and favored a stronger form of monarchy that verged on despotism.

Screen shot 2011-12-27 at 7.56.18 AM

This description comes partly from the period, when in 1864 “it appeared that a new constitution could not be agreed on, he declared that the Constitution of 1852 should be replaced by one he wrote himself” (Day, 1984, 70). But the power to do that was in the old constitution, and if one looks at the new Constitution, that power is absent. In other words, Lot had reduced his own power rather than increasing it. Members of the legislature thanked him afterward.

2. Pauahi was the last of the high-born Kamehamehas

The last of the high-born Kamehamehas was Albert Kūnuiakea, son of Kamehameha III. Albert seemed to be a persona non grata since he was “illegitimate” as the son of Kauikeaouli and Jane Lahilahi Young. This made him Queen Emma’s cousin, and the black sheep of that family. He was literally “the man would be be king,” that is, if the missionaries hadnʻt brought the notion of illegitimacy with them.

Albert Kūnuiakea (1852 - 1901)

Albert Kūnuiakea (1852 – 1901)

Think about it: he could have been Kamehameha IV, rather than Alexander Liholiho, and Albert lived into the twentieth century. So the son of Kamehameha III could have been king for 40 years by the time of the overthrow, making such an event much less likely. He is buried at Mauna Ala, recognition that he was a royal in the 20th century.

There are also many other descendants of Kamehameha – see the book Kamehameha’s Children Today.

1. Annexation

That it happened. Without a treaty. Legally or illegally. This isnʻt as widespread these days as the others, but whatʻs at stake is obviously much, much greater than with the others. Those who say there was an “illegal annexation” neglect the fact that annexation is precisely the legal aspect of a conquest, thus it’s an oxymoron. Those who point to Supreme Court decisions neglect the fact (as I said in my debate with Ian Lind) that there were two countries involved, and one country’s court, no matter how supreme, simply does not have a say in the legality of their action – it is an international issue. Those who say international law does not exist fail to consider what other countries think when its understandings are violated (as with Iraq in 2003): could we be next? Whatʻs to stop the US or China from taking us over if there are no rules? That’s why these international norms are in place. China, in fact, seems to be on to the US occupation – in 2011, they said “we could claim Hawaiʻi,” to which then-Secretary of State Hilary Clinton responded “weʻll prove we own it,” showing that she understood it was a challenge to the US occupation, not a threat to simply invade.

While some misconceptions have more impact than others, the cumulative effect of these, and many other myths (when combined with a plain and complete ignorance of Hawaiian history on the part of many) is to distort courses of action and decision-making processes. This is true even, and perhaps especially, among Hawaiians themselves.

Leave a comment

Filed under academia, Education, Hawaiian history, Uncategorized

The State of Hawaiʻi – Part 4: The State without History

This is part four of a series of articles I’ve been drafting for my students in Hawai’i Politics and other courses. Part one deals with rail and other issues andpart two with race and the Democratic machine. The third installment looked at the psychology of development. This fourth installment examines the problems with the transmission of history in books and schools.

In the recently-published book Captive Paradise by James L. Haley, the author essentially brags that he consulted no Hawaiian historians or Hawaiian language sources because doing so would simply be “political correctness.” He claims that English language sources are adequate.

Screen Shot 2015-03-09 at 1.25.30 PM

An independent scholar published by St. Martin’s press (a major publishing house), Haley launched another assault on Hawaiʻi’s history from outside, along with Julia Flynn Siler’s Lost Kingdom. Lost Kingdom was not as blatantly anti-historiography, but contained mistakes, which the author admitted (confusing Liholiho and Alexander Liholiho). One problem was that after four years of research, the author and her research assistant failed to even come across the argument that Hawaiʻi was illegally annexed. It makes one wonder what universe they live in (certainly not the umiverse;). As Makana Risser Chai wrote on Amazon and the umiverse in her review of Siler’s book:

The author gives two sentences to the petitions against annexation sent by tens of thousands of Hawaiians. She makes no mention that as a result of this and other opposition, the treaty of annexation was defeated on February 27, 1898, when only 46 senators voted in favor. She states (284), “a joint resolution on annexation passed Congress with a simple majority,” without noting that annexation, under the U. S. Constitution, cannot take place by resolution. It was a procedural move by Republicans who could not get the two-thirds majority they needed for a treaty.

The worst failing of this book is that it makes the fascinating history of Hawai`i a dry, boring read. If you want to read an accurate, entertaining introduction to this particular part of Hawaiian history, I highly recommend Sarah Vowell’s Unfamiliar Fishes.

Locally, things are not much better, as I’ve repeatedly written. Think of the process of becoming a Hawaiian history teacher in the public schools: you have to pass the Praxis test, which is 40% history (no Hawaiian history) and 60% a wide variety of other social sciences. The chances that someone will know all this and have a deep understanding of Hawaiian history is quite unlikely, though by no means impossible. At the very least, it would take time – a lot of it. And given that the average teacher leaves the profession within five years, those left with a deep understanding of Hawaiian history are quite rare indeed. According to a DOE teacher I know who reviewed the new version of their textbook, the book reflects little, or none of the scholarship from the past 25 years.

This trickles up to politicians with very little understanding of Hawaiʻi’s history. For this reason I support the effort to train politicians in Hawaiian culture. I’ve also suggested to historians that a committee be formed that would give a stamp of credibility to works on Hawaiian history. This would be voluntary, but not  having the stamp could eventually throw such works into question

5 Comments

Filed under academia, Hawaiian history, Uncategorized

The State of Hawaiʻi – Part 3: The State of Development

This is part three of a series of articles I’ve been drafting for my students in Hawai’i Politics and other courses. Part one deals with rail and other issues and part two with race and the Democratic machine. This third installment looks at the psychology of development.

Plans for a military research center at the University of Hawaiʻi underscore the reality highlighted by the approval of the Koa Ridge and Hoʻopili zoning changes: that Hawaiʻi is really a state of development. The driving force in Hawaiʻi is the consensus between developers and unions epitomized by Pacific Resource Partnership, the SuperPAC that crushed any effective opposition to establishment candidates in 2012. That the military lab will be named for the late Senator Daniel Inouye shows the status with which he presided over this consensus and his position as the “King of Hawaiʻi,” as the Wall Street Journal called him.

Screen shot 2015-03-08 at 5.51.36 AM

Carleton Ching

With the nomination of Carleton Ching for head of the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), which manages the “ceded lands” (the Kingdom Crown and Government lands), this “state of development” is coming into focus. Ching spent years trying to weaken environmental protections as a part-time lobbyist for Castle and Cooke. All the outrage against Ching’s nomination (even the Star-Advertiser came out against it) is gratifying, but may overlook the fact that it’s business as usual. Ching may actually only stand out because of the contrast with his predecessor Bill Aila. He is nevertheless an extremely pro-development choice. According to Ehu Kekahu Cardwell:

As President of the Land Use Research Foundation, a pro-development lobby group, Carleton Ching advocated

– To weaken protections for public access to beaches.

– To weaken protections for traditional and customary practices.

– To remove permit requirements that protect shorelines from development.

– Against laws to address climate change.

– For the Public Lands Development Corporation (PLDC)

Carleton Ching Confirmation Hearings

WHEN – Wednesday, March 11th 10AM

WHERE – Hawai`i Capitol – Room 229

Canʻt Attend? – Submit Your Opposition Testimony Today!

Submit Your Opposition Online Testimony Here –http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx

Or By Email Here – WTLTestimony@capitol.hawaii.gov

All written testimony should indicate whether you will be testifying in person

Between Koa Ridge, Hoʻopili, the plans to sell pineapple lands in Wahiawa and Envision Laie, we are heading toward having no open space on Oʻahu along any of the major highways. Add Ching to the mix and even the mauka protected forest areas arenʻt safe. One can imagine that wealthy people would like mountain retreats along the lines of Tantalus or Palehua in the Waianae mountains (see the cover of Israel’s Kamakawiwoʻole’s Facing Future – thatʻs Jon DeMelloʻs Palehua house at 3000 feet, six miles above Makakilo).

Israel Kamakawiwoʻole at Palehua, Waianae Mts.

Israel Kamakawiwoʻole at Palehua, Waianae Mts.

Koa Ridge

How much more urban can Oʻahu get? You might think of Hong Kong or Japan, but even they have large protected forest areas. With Chingʻs nomination  thereʻs the potential to erode at that. Within the economic logic of developers, it’s a no-brainer to go on building high-yield developments until land runs out. We need to question this “logic” and show that its really a kind of psychosis.

Leave a comment

Filed under Environment, ʻĀina, Uncategorized

Reconciliation revisited

What I would have said at the Hoʻokuʻikahi Reconciliation service on Jan. 17 if I’d had more time:

The great psychologist Carl Jung said:

There is no coming to consciousness without pain. People will do anything to avoid facing their souls.

I noted in my talk at St. Andrew’s Cathedral that it felt strange at first to be addressing a topic as seemingly secular as sovereignty in that space. But I soon realized that reconciliation isnʻt secular at all – it is about consciousness. Reconciliation is about consciousness because it requires the taking on and consideration of other perspectives. This taking on of new perspectives, according to Integral theorist Ken Wilber, is the very definition of “cognitive,” which is why much of the anti-intellectualism that runs through the spiritual movement is misplaced.

When organizing the service, Kahu Dr. Kaleo Patterson used a phrase that caught my attention: “mindful nationalism.” It caught my attention because Iʻve always found the use of the term nationalism in the Hawaiian movement somewhat alarming. People who are familiar, or who can remember the horrors of the nationalist movements of the early- and mid-twentieth century would find the term even more alarming. So the descriptor “mindful” is absolutely crucial here – it makes clear that ours will not be the mindless nationalism of so many independence and regime changing movements. It sets into the record that we will not use easy lines of division to exclude people from the nation that is being built here (even OHA uses the term nation-building), or perhaps restored.

The consciousness required of such a mindful nationalism requires development: conscious(ness) change over time. Developmental psychology shows that people, given a reasonably healthy social environment, develop (or “evolve”) over time in predictable ways that begin to include larger and larger groups into their “circle of self.” The prevailing mode in the social sciences and humanities – postmodernism – deconstructs hierarchies, and being sequential, development could be considered a hierarchy. This “flattening” of the social landscape creates what Robert Bly has called the “sibling society” – a society in which everyone is on the same level. Without parents, there is no agreement in such a society that some people, over time, gain true wisdom. Our culture’s obsession with youthful bodies has as its parallel an obsession with youthful (immature) consciousness. Witness reality TV, in which self-serving avarice is considered a virtue.

Partly because of this flattening, both sides of the political spectrum have become materialistic, but in different ways. Thought it claims to be spiritual, and likely is (in its own strange way) the right is pretty literally materialistic: it is the party of business, and its God wants you to be rich (this explains why the US is the only developed country that is both wealthy and religious). The left is materialistic in a different way: there is a Marxist thread throughout it that sees historical materialism as a driving force of history. The material history of class struggle is  history itself. “History is the history of class struggle,” as Marx put it.

Because both sides are materialistic, progressive communities of faith are quite rare (religious but not materialistic in either of the ways described above). This is why, in my opinion, they comprise the majority of the small group of people occupying the “higher” levels of consciousness which we would all strive to reach, if only we knew they existed. In other words, science and modernity itself can put up obstacles to development. (This is not true in all cases, in fact, most of the notable quantum physicists were mystics).

When one can be driven by both the naʻau (literally “gut”, intuition) and the naʻauao (intelligence, enlightened consciousness), it is a profound state for effective decision-making and eventual reconciliation.

Leave a comment

Filed under Hawaiian history, intellect

My article in The Nation – the original

There were several versions, but you may be able to see the difference between the final version and this one below: The Nation edited it to be more colloquial (I wasnʻt too happy about that) but also had one of the most rigorous fact checking regimens of any US publication (that was good). I didnʻt have many “wrong” points, but had to “tone down” some of the language from this original. Also, some had to be cut for their (restrictive for this topic) 1000-word limit. But The Nation is the oldest weekly newsmagazine in the US. Founded in 1865, it is celebrating its 150th anniversary this year (2015). It is also the most important media outlet of the left, and I was quite proud to write for them. You should see some significant differences in turns of phrase and the way data is presented.

On June 24th, in the conference room of the Hawaiʻi State Capitol in Honolulu, Native Hawaiians gathered for the first of several hearings held by the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) throughout the Hawaiian Islands as well as on the U.S. continent. The hearings were held to ask Native Hawaiians for input on the formation of a Federally recognized nation. Surprisingly, after decades of endeavoring to achieve such a status, the overwhelming response to the panel of DOI officials was “aʻole” – no. At the Honolulu hearing, Political Science Professor Noelani Goodyear-Kaʻōpua questioned the “reestablishing of a relationship” between the Federal government and the Native Hawaiian community, when no relationship existed other than the treaty relationships with the Hawaiian Kingdom. She asked DOI to recognize that “you are on our land,” proposed “free, prior and informed consent” and neutral international monitoring. Several speakers also reminded DOI that Hawaiʻi was previously a neutral, multi-ethnic country, and stated that the descendants of its non-native citizens were now being disenfranchised. Between two and five percent at all the hearings spoke in favor, including Hawaiian Roll Commissioner Naʻalehu Anthony, who said he did not want to pass the struggle on to his son after watching three generations fight for Hawaiian rights.

Screen Shot 2015-02-02 at 11.44.16 AM

Mainstream media coverage focused on tone, rather than content and missed the real story, which was that a shift in Hawaiian political will and a consensus had emerged over the proper route to sovereignty. In a community known for its divisiveness, this shift was quite stunning. Under the radar, a new view of Hawaiian history had taken hold, one in which debates over the history of the Hawaiian Kingdom, overthrown in 1893, were at the center.

Unified in 1810 by King Kamehameha I, Hawaiʻi was recognized internationally as a sovereign, independent country beginning in 1843. Fifty years later, the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi had treaties with nearly all the sovereign states in existence, including five with the US. In 1893, Queen Liliʻuokalani was overthrown by sugar businessmen backed a company of US Marines. President Cleveland called this unauthorized intervention an “act of war,” withdrew the proposed annexation treaty and agreed to reinstate Liliʻuokalani. On Feb February 9th, 1893, The Nation wrote, “We could not by annexation at the moment gain anything which we do not now possess.” A standoff between the President and Congress over the question of annexation prevented any action for five years.

When William McKinley took office in 1897, he attempted a second treaty, but this failed in the Senate, in part because of petitions opposing annexation. When the Spanish-American war broke out the following year, McKinley and annexationists in Congress led by Alabama Senator (and Ku Klux Klan “Dragon”) John Tyler Morgan decided, in the words of Congressman Thomas Ball of Texas, “to do unlawfully that which can not be done lawfully.” In 1898 they purported to annex Hawaiʻi via Joint Resolution. While the Congress issued a formal apology to the Hawaiian people in 1993 “for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893 with the participation of agents and citizens of the United States,” it is the subsequent annexation by resolution that lies at the heart of the current drama.

Those who accept that Hawaiʻi was annexed, legally or not, have pursued a course of Federal recognition leading to a limited form of “sovereignty.” This view is epitomized by former Governor John Waiheʻe, who said at the University of Hawaiʻi that one “would have to be illiterate” not to recognize the illegality of annexation, but questions how such a position would benefit Hawaiians. Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) Trustee Oswald Stender said more bluntly, on film, that Hawaiʻi was illegally annexed, but “so what?” The “domestic” approach to sovereignty first took form in the proposed Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act – the so-called “Akaka Bill” – named after its sponsor, the Native Hawaiian Senator Daniel Akaka. The bill circulated through Congress for twelve years before expiring with its sponsor’s retirement and the death of senior Senator Daniel Inouye in 2012. A new approach was devised in which the Department of Interior would propose “rule-making” changes that would allow Hawaiians to join the more than five hundred native nations already in existence. Fitting Hawaiians’ unique history into the template for Federal recognition has been a persistent challenge for advocates of this approach.

Others, taking the law at face value, find that if annexation was illegal, it is tantamount to saying that it did not occur at all. As a mere domestic instrument, a resolution, it is argued, cannot have effect in foreign territory. This means Hawaiʻi is under a prolonged military occupation, albeit one that the United States has not yet admitted to. The independence view was buoyed by a case in the International Court of Arbitration involving Hawaiʻi as an independent country. Hawaiʻi will also be listed in the 2013 War Report, a catalog of contemporary international conflicts published in Geneva, Switzerland, as an occupied state. The independence camp was given a further lift when in May, OHA CEO Kamanaʻopono Crabbe sent a letter to US Secretary of State John Kerry asking for “advisement” on possible breaches of international law stemming from OHA support of Federal Recognition. Unsurprisingly, the letter caused uproar on one side and prompted petitions of support on the other.

At its root, the conflict between supporters of independence and Federal recognition stems from divergent beliefs about law and power. Independence advocates view the international law and specifically the law of occupation as safeguards against the continuation of an illegally constituted, and essentially occupying, government – the State of Hawaiʻi. They call not for decolonization, but deoccupation, as was done in the Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) upon the breakup of the Soviet Union. Federal recognition supporters are sometimes beneficiaries of Hawaiian “entitlements” such as the Federal Hawaiian Home Lands homesteading program or are U.S. military veterans, and argue that the United States would never allow a withdrawal regardless of Hawaiʻi’s legal status internationally. These views and the paths they imply appear to be mutually exclusive, making reconciliation difficult. Some suggest that a further reexamination of Hawaiʻi’s widely misunderstood history is implicated as the only route to any kind of reconciliation.

ʻUmi Perkins teaches Hawaiian history at the Kamehameha Schools and Political Science in the University of Hawaiʻi system.

Leave a comment

Filed under Globalization, Hawaiian history, intellect, Uncategorized

The Overthrow: a blow-by-blow

Screen Shot 2014-11-14 at 12.34.00 PM

On the day of the overthrow the Hawaiian newspaper Ka Leo o ka Lahui ran on its front page “Ka Moolelo o Hiʻiakaikapoliopele,” the story of Hiʻiaka and Pele. It was as if Hawaiians, knowing that change was coming, looked to their own mythology to retain their identity.

Screen Shot 2014-11-14 at 12.28.57 PM

By the time of Liliʻuokalani’s ascension to the throne in January 1891, the stage was beginning to be set for a takeover; the British ambassador Wodehouse, who had been critical of American ambitions, was replaced by a more conciliatory one in the early 1890s, for example. But the real stage-setter was the “Bayonet” Constitution – the constitution of 1887, virtually signed at gunpoint. Willie Kauai has argued that this constitution, with its restrictions on voting rights, was the beginning of racial demarcations, rather than those of citizenship. It gave voting rights by race, whereas previously there had been universal male suffrage for Hawaiian subjects.

There may never have been an overthrow if it werenʻt for US Minister [essentially the ambassador] John L. Stevens and a small group of men from Maine. Stevens was a close friend of James Blaine, US Secretary of State, part of the group that College of William and Mary Professor William Crapol has called the “Maine mafia.” In what the Cleveland administration called “reprehensible” behavior, Stevens was coaching the insurgents on how to conduct the overthrow.

In 1892, Lorrin Thurston had travelled to Washington to get a green light for the overthrow. He communicated that “it may be necessary to secure the government through a coup dʻetat.” B.F. Tracy, Secretary of the Navy responded that “the President does not think he should see you, but if you feel compelled to act as you have indicated, you will find an exceedingly sympathetic administration here.” Crapol has said that this arms length kept between President Harrison and Thurston, and the statement that they would be “sympathetic,” without mentioning the coup directly, strongly suggests the knowledge that the US was possibly in breach of international law. It was B.F. Tracy who later sent the order to US Marines on the USS Boston (a state of the art battleship) the following year to head to Honolulu and await orders.

Louis “Buzzy” Agard has found encoded documents (and the code book!) in the US archives that show a US plan to attack the major ports in Hawaiʻi ending in Honolulu. This changes the story from a US-backed overthrow to a US overthrow, and sheds light on Stevens’s actions – they were secretly condoned and encouraged by the Harrison administration.

The Queen planned to promulgate a new constitution, but the cabinet backed down – likely aware of the plans that were being fomented by the conspirators. The Queen counseled patience.

COMMITTEE OF SAFETY

The so-called “Committee of Safety” – a name based on the pretense that American lives and property were in danger was comprised of 9 foreigners and 4 haole citizens of the Kingdom.

Marshall Charles Wilson closed saloons early – 9:00pm rather than 11:00pm – to prevent any pretext for foreign troops to land (as they had done during the riots after Kalākaua’s election). He sent agents to do surveillance on the conspirators. Wilson proposed to arrest the conspirators and put the island under martial law, but the cabinet advised against it and refused to give Wilson permission to make arests. Wilson felt that Hawaiian forces could successfully oppose the Marines. They had over 200 men, whereas there were 152 men in the Marine battalion, and 11 officers.

Stevens wrote: “in view of the existing critical circumstances in Honolulu, I request you to land US Marines and sailors under your command to secure American life and property.” G. Wiltse, commander of the USS Boston responded to Stevens’s request and marched his men past the palace. At 4:25 Wiltse landed the Marines to “assist in preserving public order.”

Samuel Parker

The cabinet had not requested the landing of the troops – cabinet member Samuel Parker requested the “authority upon which this action is taken.” The marines stationed themselves on Mililani Street, but ended up staying at a hotel that, ironically, had been Liliʻuokalani’s childhood home. [I heard this recently, but have not verified it].  The Queen asked why the troops had landed when everything was at peace. Attorney General Paul Neumann said that the charged that lives and property were in danger was “spurious and false … lives and property were as safe here as in Kennebec, Maine.” This was a reference to the curious link to three towns in Maine that seemed to be the origin of annexationist sentiment – Augusta, Hollowell, and Kennebec.

The conspirators continued to recruit at a lodging house, and Marshall Wilson suggested proclaiming martial law and arresting the conspirators. The Queen asked why the troops had not stationed themselves in front of American properties instead of “with guns aimed at us?”

January 17, 1893: by 11:00am Dole had been named as President of the Provisional Government. He had considered the matter overnight, as a Supreme Court judge undoubtedly knowing that his actions constituted treason.

On the street, a policeman named Leialoha was shot trying to intercept a wagon of arms.

Dole and a small group of men walked to the entrance of the Government building, the present-day Judiciary building. Henry Cooper, a denizen read the proclamation: “the monarchical government is hereby abrogated and a Provisional Governement established.” Those who signed the proclamation included McCandless, Wilhelm, Thurston, Smith, Jones, Emmeluth, Ashley, Cooper, Frear, Bolte, Browne, and Waterhouse.*

Committee of Public Safety

The Palace and barracks and police were still under the control of the Queen and could make an attempt to resist. But Minster Stevens recognized the Provisional Government immediately: “I recognize said Provisional Government as the de facto government of the Hawaiian islands.”

Liliʻuokalani yielded not to the Provisional Government, but to the “superior force of the United States:”

I, Liliuokalani, by the grace of God and under the constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Queen, do hereby solemnly protest against any and all acts done against myself and the constitutional Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by certain persons claiming to have established a Provisional Government of and for this Kingdom. That I yield to the superior force of the United States of America, whose minister plenipotentiary, His Excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support the said Provisional Government.

Now, to avoid any collision of armed forces, and perhaps the loss of life, I do, under this protest and impelled by said forces, yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon the facts being presented to it, undo (?) the action of its representative and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands.

Done at Honolulu, this 17th day of January, A. D. 1893.

(Signed) Liliuokalani R.

(Signed) Samuel Parker, Minister of Foreign Affairs.
(Signed) Wm. H. Cornwell, Minister of Finance.
(Signed) John F. Colburn, Minister of Interior.
(Signed) A. P. Peterson, Attorney-General.

At 7:15pm Wilson disarmed the police and others who had taken up arms.

Hui Aloha ʻAina noted the irony that after only eight days, the Provisional Government requested to be a protectorate of the US.

Stevens soon preached of the opportunity Hawaiʻi’s overthrow presented to the burgeoning American empire: “the Hawaiian pear is now ripe and this is the golden hour for the United States to pluck it.” But the overthrow was a kind of non-event and was always really about America’s reaction to it. The lame duck President Harrison rushed a treaty of annexation to the Senate in February. But in March, 1893, Grover Cleveland was inaugurated, and withdrew the annexation treaty from the Senate on March 9th, 1893 (executive documents, p. 1190).

On March 29th, 1893 former Senator James Blount arrived in Honolulu and ordered the troops back to their ships and the lowering of the American flag. Blount asked what the result would be if there were to be a vote on the question of annexation. One respondent noted that “it would be overwhelmingly defeated.” Later, Congress ensured that the matter would not be put to a vote.

The Womenʻs Hui Aloha Aina issued a statement:

We resent the presumption of being traded like a flock of sheep or bartered like a horde of savages, and we could not believe that the US could tolerate such an annexation by force, against the wishes of the majority of the population – such an annexation would be an eternal dishonor.

Abigail Kuaihelani Campbell, President of the Women’s Hui Aloha ‘Åina

Harperʻs weekly noted the irregularity of the event:

the Hawaiian islands have been stolen and offered to the United States by the thieves. What is the duty of the US, accept the stolen goods?

As late as December, 1893, Lili’uokalani noted in the book Hawaii’s Story by Hawai’i’s Queen, that President Cleveland still considered her the head of state.

On December 18th, 1893, Grover Cleveland addressed Congress, informed by the Blount report:

By an act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress, the Government of a feeble but friendly and confiding people has been overthrown. A substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national character as well as the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair. The provisional government has not assumed a republican or other constitutional form, but has remained a mere executive council or oligarchy, set up without the assent of the people. It has not sought to find a permanent basis of popular support and has given no evidence of an intention to do so. Indeed, the representatives of that government assert that the people of Hawaii are unfit for popular government and frankly avow that they can be best ruled by arbitrary or despotic power.

The law of nations is founded upon reason and justice, and the rules of conduct governing individual relations between citizens or subjects of a civilized state are equally applicable as between enlightened nations. The considerations that international law is without a court for its enforcement, and that obedience to its commands practically depends upon good faith, instead of upon the mandate of a superior tribunal, only give additional sanction to the law itself and brand any deliberate infraction of it not merely as a wrong but as a disgrace. A man of true honor protects the unwritten word which binds his conscience more scrupulously, if possible, than he does the bond a breach of which subjects him to legal liabilities; and the United States in aiming to maintain itself as one of the most enlightened of nations would do its citizens gross injustice if it applied to its international relations any other than a high standard of honor and morality.

In a seemingly scitzophrenic move, the Provisional Government refuses to relinquish control, saying that the US is intervening in the affairs of a sovereign country, then proceeding to call themselves the Republic of Hawaiʻi, with an independence day of July 4th. At their 1894 Constitutional convention, 3000 voted, and 14,000 refused to vote.

In January 1985, Robert Wilcox attempted an insurrection. The plot was discovered and he and 200 others, including Prince Kūhiō, were arrested for treason, and tried before a military tribunal.

“Battle of Manoa”

The queen was imprisoned in the palace for eight months. She was pardoned in October 1896, and she travelled to Washington, D.C. in December to lobby against annexation and protest to the State Department.

There was debate over the extent of the American empire, whether it would be hemispheric or global. Itʻs not hard to see the irony of Cleveland’s position, as one newspaper pointed out: “never before has an American executive [attempted to] stamp out Republicanism and restore monarchy.”

Even with the 1898 breakout of the Spanish-American war, there was not enough support for a treaty, and annexation was purported to be achieved via joint resolution. As one newspaper put it: “if Congress should strictly obey the constitution, annexation could not take place” [Harpers Weekly]

By the end of the century the US had also taken Guam , Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines.

One commentator noted: “Annexation is not a change, it is a consummation.”

On August 12, 1898, 12 noon, the annexation ceremony took place. Surrounded by US Military troops, Dole exchanged a treaty for a Joint Resolution, and proclaimed:

I now yield up to you representative of the US, the sovereignty and public property of the Hawaiian islands.

As Iʻve noted elsewhere, the purpose of the overthrow was always annexation. In The Secret Session, I published the entire transcript of the closed-door session of the Senate in which the Joint Resolution was discussed.

* Some members of the Committee of Safety are described in another post, Who Was the Committee of Safety? The Inner Circle of Overthrow

1 Comment

Filed under Hawaiian history, sovereignty, Uncategorized