We all talk about the illegality of the 1893 Overthrow, but what details do we really know about the whole affair and what occurred just a year before it happened. Was there anything that could have been done? Your thoughts and feelings, I've done a lot of research on the event and would like to know what you guys know.
You need to be a member of maoliworld to add comments!
the idea of "regime change" is appealing when I think of the "overthrow". Hawai'i had neither gold, silver, nor diamonds. It was discovered late. The "hacks" came here. Our pirates did not have the guts to go where the real "action" was. The Blount Report is my guide. Lottery, opium, etc. It's all in there. With a climax unlike some accounts. Lot's of detail but hard to get at. The index is a wreck ! But the interviews were great !!
I know you are responding to KKK as far as regime change via the Overthrow--which is Sanford and later Kuhio. This is careless in a sense that we are saying in an indirect sense that the change was for the better. But, really is it for the better? Or, just a passing of time until we have drawn an insignificant inhabitant numbers?
The trade agreements of Jonathan-sibling to Nathan Winship and William Heath Davis. was a binding business contract that landed land estates in Hawaii in 1847. I believe it's not the puzzle, but a lead up to your argument of 'aversion' and the need to overthrow the Hawaiian Kingdom?
My argument is weak against the Kam III stepping stones to 'Liliu' and her incident. It's because the normal distribution will come out a win win for the Kauai conspirators around 1893.
I am only going to reply and dispute one citation in your statements, since the rest resembles internal self dialogue.
1) "My second sighting would be a visit to the Navy Museum in Boston where I learned that Kam I actually was in Boston as a warrior learning the art of war. Did hop on board the Constitution too."
-This is a complete falsehood historically, Kamehameha I at no time left the pae 'aina on a foreign vessel to visit Boston to be trained in the art of war, the only chief known to have done such travels outside of the pae 'aina is Kaiana. However, the other chiefs were disappointed when Kaiana did not display any comprehensive knowledge or know how in the operation of the foreign weapons, which is what the other chiefs were expecting as a result of his travels. If Kamehameha had traveled to Boston and had been formally trained in the use of firearms and tactics there would have been no expectation of Kaiana to teach them how to use firearms since Kamehameha would have been present. Also Isaac Davis and John Young would not have been depended upon as heavily as they were for their real experience with firearms. If I wanted to read mythology I would have read Ka Mo'olelo no Kamapua'a.
Wow! Again this inexplicable talent to say a lot without saying anything, it reminds of an 'olelo no'eau-" 'O ka makapō wale nō ka mea e hāpapa i ka pōuli" (Only the blind gropes in the dark). It is too bad you personalize your discussions for I have no enmity towards you and in that respect I say "aloha no".
Lets break this down, cause this is a whole lot of stuff with a very interesting path. I will quote you and then respond.
1) "I am perplexed at the confusion that I subscribed to the idea that the "presence of the military would prevent a clear description of events that surround the Overthrow?"
-I'm not confused about anything pertaining to my response, I just don't agree with your statement that the presence of the U.S. military clouds a clear understanding of the events. I'm still wondering why you subscribe to this idea, hopefully you will give detailed answer.
2)"First, this argument would be more of a 'keanusai' assertion and you (second person). But, rereading and I did this poorly by not quoting and responding and then expressing my opinion which I believe led to the assertion. Unlike guilt trip, but more of information exchange, historically, the event of first battles (native-US nationals vs. native), objects-guns, and activities 1778, thus the symbolism of tourist explanations by a contemporary artist and tourist authority (missionary thoughts) seems more deeply rooted."
-I made no assertion, I merely disagreed and expected you would either respond with an explanation or not respond. Not quite sure about 'guilt trip' and how that's relative to our discourse but it is an interesting talent to say a whole lot without saying anything.
3)"Secondly, what frustrates me is that isolated Hawaiians in the Pacific never really question Kam I and his affiliation with the US military, therefore have shallow outlook a hundred years later as to the numbers of citizen participations. Yes, I do seek gratification to the history event and its origin in the context of moral and ethics. What were the changes, if any, since the time of Kam's first battles with his people with the help of the US military? What were the society norms’s from the first native battle to the second battle. Koolaupoko frontline lost 800 or more male natives in the Nuuanu Battle, women were raped, and villages were pillaged leading up to the actual 'overthrow'."
-Not quite sure what this has to do with the Overthrow, but it is an interesting position. However I would have to say that you might want to brush up on your history considering that kanaka were not complicit with everything that Kamehameha I had to say or do. They were fighting against him even past his death as well as he had to militarily conquer the entire pae 'aina or at least provide a show of force to get people in line. That doesn't sound like a complicit position of the kanaka in respects to Kamehameha I. Also, Kamehameha I didn't have an affiliation with the U.S. it was with British.
4) "Given the capitalistic migrants to the pae'aina and their military mindset (West point) and it's manifest destiny of James Polk origin, I hardly think that the artifacts (taro patches, hydro Mauka to Makai etc...) in a panoramic view from the Nuuanu Pali could have survived the ever changing influx of trade routes from east, west, north and south. Although I am told that through the evidence of language of Niihau origin that it's words were a mixture of all Pacific Islanders without boundaries. I like to venture that we the Pacific Islanders had a lesser violent nature in trade among ourselves when compared to Kam I and his co-partnership with East Coast Continent of US and their military. That differences cost the native Hawaiians their pae'aina!"
-Again, Kamehameha I had no affiliation with the east coast of the U.S. or its' military, unless of course you can provide names of U.S. warships and their respective commanders of whom Kamehameha I had this supposed relationship with. Those military commanders would have logged such a relationship if one did occur, especially when dealing with a head of state such as Kamehameha I. To date I haven't seen one recorded by the U.S. or even from the Hawaiian side.
5) "Returning to the broad question of the military and the overthrow...how much of a researcher are you? Are you academically inclined? Do you research and share homegrown style with wisdom? Or the wannabee type that voices the 'talk story' kind. Regardless, of what un/discipline--it's all good! I'm always seeking 'filters' to my writing or an audience to sharpen my contentions. So do I pass or no pass?"
-My question(s) were straight forward as were my responses, they did not pertain to your background or question your origin. They were also not personalized to your character, maybe answering the question directly would be of benefit and discourse between people does not always mean that individual(s) have to agree, but I believe respect should be mutual. Therefore by disagreeing I have not disrespected you or your knowledge base.
I have resigned not to respond to the last two paragraphs considering I'm still waiting for a coherent response. It is my hope that one will be revealed without the eulogy and personal attacks.
If you would to know what we know you are probing our knowledge, and it varies from individual to individual. Finding out our knowledge will not bring you closer to the question whether the overthrow could have been averted. I am convinced that this past conditional research is a waste of time (please forgive my bluntness), because it will not bring us closer to a solution. At this point the only valid issue today is how we can mitigate the consequences of the overthrow.
Replies
The most important version ??????
http://www.angelfire.com/rant/revolt/XmasGrover.pdf
I will take the un- biased, self- incriminating version !!!......................................not Our Queen's version.
the idea of "regime change" is appealing when I think of the "overthrow". Hawai'i had neither gold, silver, nor diamonds. It was discovered late. The "hacks" came here. Our pirates did not have the guts to go where the real "action" was. The Blount Report is my guide. Lottery, opium, etc. It's all in there. With a climax unlike some accounts. Lot's of detail but hard to get at. The index is a wreck ! But the interviews were great !!
http://libweb.hawaii.edu/digicoll/annexation/blount/br0990.html
Mahalo for the response, you enjoyed the idea of regime change via the Overthrow, is that correct? Could you expand upon that point.
I know you are responding to KKK as far as regime change via the Overthrow--which is Sanford and later Kuhio. This is careless in a sense that we are saying in an indirect sense that the change was for the better. But, really is it for the better? Or, just a passing of time until we have drawn an insignificant inhabitant numbers?
The trade agreements of Jonathan-sibling to Nathan Winship and William Heath Davis. was a binding business contract that landed land estates in Hawaii in 1847. I believe it's not the puzzle, but a lead up to your argument of 'aversion' and the need to overthrow the Hawaiian Kingdom?
My argument is weak against the Kam III stepping stones to 'Liliu' and her incident. It's because the normal distribution will come out a win win for the Kauai conspirators around 1893.
I am only going to reply and dispute one citation in your statements, since the rest resembles internal self dialogue.
1) "My second sighting would be a visit to the Navy Museum in Boston where I learned that Kam I actually was in Boston as a warrior learning the art of war. Did hop on board the Constitution too."
-This is a complete falsehood historically, Kamehameha I at no time left the pae 'aina on a foreign vessel to visit Boston to be trained in the art of war, the only chief known to have done such travels outside of the pae 'aina is Kaiana. However, the other chiefs were disappointed when Kaiana did not display any comprehensive knowledge or know how in the operation of the foreign weapons, which is what the other chiefs were expecting as a result of his travels. If Kamehameha had traveled to Boston and had been formally trained in the use of firearms and tactics there would have been no expectation of Kaiana to teach them how to use firearms since Kamehameha would have been present. Also Isaac Davis and John Young would not have been depended upon as heavily as they were for their real experience with firearms. If I wanted to read mythology I would have read Ka Mo'olelo no Kamapua'a.
mahalo,
Thanks for the stop-wait-a-minute-get-your facts straight!
Isaac Davis a European! I fly over the 100 years just to get to the HK period with connections of experience and observation. Rereading Levy again..
I play this song, when I correct myself..
Joss Stone - RIGHT TO BE WRONG (Live SWU Music and Arts Festival, Brazil 2010)
Lets break this down, cause this is a whole lot of stuff with a very interesting path. I will quote you and then respond.
1) "I am perplexed at the confusion that I subscribed to the idea that the "presence of the military would prevent a clear description of events that surround the Overthrow?"
-I'm not confused about anything pertaining to my response, I just don't agree with your statement that the presence of the U.S. military clouds a clear understanding of the events. I'm still wondering why you subscribe to this idea, hopefully you will give detailed answer.
2)"First, this argument would be more of a 'keanusai' assertion and you (second person). But, rereading and I did this poorly by not quoting and responding and then expressing my opinion which I believe led to the assertion. Unlike guilt trip, but more of information exchange, historically, the event of first battles (native-US nationals vs. native), objects-guns, and activities 1778, thus the symbolism of tourist explanations by a contemporary artist and tourist authority (missionary thoughts) seems more deeply rooted."
-I made no assertion, I merely disagreed and expected you would either respond with an explanation or not respond. Not quite sure about 'guilt trip' and how that's relative to our discourse but it is an interesting talent to say a whole lot without saying anything.
3)"Secondly, what frustrates me is that isolated Hawaiians in the Pacific never really question Kam I and his affiliation with the US military, therefore have shallow outlook a hundred years later as to the numbers of citizen participations. Yes, I do seek gratification to the history event and its origin in the context of moral and ethics. What were the changes, if any, since the time of Kam's first battles with his people with the help of the US military? What were the society norms’s from the first native battle to the second battle. Koolaupoko frontline lost 800 or more male natives in the Nuuanu Battle, women were raped, and villages were pillaged leading up to the actual 'overthrow'."
-Not quite sure what this has to do with the Overthrow, but it is an interesting position. However I would have to say that you might want to brush up on your history considering that kanaka were not complicit with everything that Kamehameha I had to say or do. They were fighting against him even past his death as well as he had to militarily conquer the entire pae 'aina or at least provide a show of force to get people in line. That doesn't sound like a complicit position of the kanaka in respects to Kamehameha I. Also, Kamehameha I didn't have an affiliation with the U.S. it was with British.
4) "Given the capitalistic migrants to the pae'aina and their military mindset (West point) and it's manifest destiny of James Polk origin, I hardly think that the artifacts (taro patches, hydro Mauka to Makai etc...) in a panoramic view from the Nuuanu Pali could have survived the ever changing influx of trade routes from east, west, north and south. Although I am told that through the evidence of language of Niihau origin that it's words were a mixture of all Pacific Islanders without boundaries. I like to venture that we the Pacific Islanders had a lesser violent nature in trade among ourselves when compared to Kam I and his co-partnership with East Coast Continent of US and their military. That differences cost the native Hawaiians their pae'aina!"
-Again, Kamehameha I had no affiliation with the east coast of the U.S. or its' military, unless of course you can provide names of U.S. warships and their respective commanders of whom Kamehameha I had this supposed relationship with. Those military commanders would have logged such a relationship if one did occur, especially when dealing with a head of state such as Kamehameha I. To date I haven't seen one recorded by the U.S. or even from the Hawaiian side.
5) "Returning to the broad question of the military and the overthrow...how much of a researcher are you? Are you academically inclined? Do you research and share homegrown style with wisdom? Or the wannabee type that voices the 'talk story' kind. Regardless, of what un/discipline--it's all good! I'm always seeking 'filters' to my writing or an audience to sharpen my contentions. So do I pass or no pass?"
-My question(s) were straight forward as were my responses, they did not pertain to your background or question your origin. They were also not personalized to your character, maybe answering the question directly would be of benefit and discourse between people does not always mean that individual(s) have to agree, but I believe respect should be mutual. Therefore by disagreeing I have not disrespected you or your knowledge base.
I have resigned not to respond to the last two paragraphs considering I'm still waiting for a coherent response. It is my hope that one will be revealed without the eulogy and personal attacks.
Aloha e Merlin,
If you would to know what we know you are probing our knowledge, and it varies from individual to individual. Finding out our knowledge will not bring you closer to the question whether the overthrow could have been averted. I am convinced that this past conditional research is a waste of time (please forgive my bluntness), because it will not bring us closer to a solution. At this point the only valid issue today is how we can mitigate the consequences of the overthrow.
Me ke aloha
Janos Keoni Samu
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next