OK I'll start - I've had discussions about the reaction of Hawaiians to the 1898 annexation (after the event) - some say Hawaiians just accepted it, others that they did not. Does anyone have mo'olelo from family members about reactions to annexation? What does it mean that Hawaiians voted for the Home Rule party (Ku'oko'a Home Rula) in 1900 under Wilcox, and then for Kuhio and his Repulicans in 1902? He mau mana'o ko 'oukou?

Views: 157

Replies to This Discussion

The Ku'e Petitions have always been downplayed and it's important to remember it. About 96% of the Hawaii Nationals signed those petitions in protest of the attempted annexation. Even the non-kanaka maoli who were citizens signed the petition against annexation and were ever-loyal to the Queen and her government. The people were following the Queen's lead in non-violence. Wilcox, however, was militant and his band of supporters did strive to take back the government. The US Americans, unfortunately, had the advantage of firearms and held strict control of them. So the fact is that the Hawaii Nationals were against it, period; they were biding their time.

When the US refused to set it right; many just resigned to it begrudingly. No one came to the aid of Hawaii. The word was it was the whiteman's world and you got to fight them with their own tools or you can't beat them.

For survival, the islanders complied but if given the chance they would opt for independence. Those that tried to fight them with their own weapons lost. US American justice put many in jail for doing the same things which they got away with scot-free. That still goes on today. For survival of their families, many took the oath of allegiance under duress; if not, they couldn't get work.

I have a copy of the Buke Mele Lahui and the resistence is inscribed through songs. Under the laws of occupation, the actions of Wilcox and Kuhio is very natural. The people are still tied to their country through them. It's another way to get the people to cooperate. The people still needed to feel they have a say in the government they live under and there was always hope that one day they would get their country back.

Many Hawaiians were participants in government; more faces in government than today. Once Hawaii was proclaimed a state, the Japanese and whites rezoned the districts and divided the Hawaiian community that weakened their votes. This is how Hawaiians lost their seats in government. This has been a political strategy for the political parties also. Japanese and whites used a racial block vote determined by the rezoning of the district polls. That's how it's done.

As far as Kuhio, he played the game well and knew which side of the bread is buttered. The whites knew how to stroke him and feed his ego. Wilcox was a bit more rigid and raised more European. That itself says enough; two schools of thought.
The big problem with the Ku'e petitions is that most of the signatures were forged (apparently typical at the time). You can look online and see the same signature being used for dozens of names in a row.

And Wilcox didn't join in the 1895 rebellion until very late in the game, and really ended up getting a bad rap for someone else's poorly laid plans - and the Republic of Hawaii put down the rebellion while simultaneously being opposed by the administration of Cleveland. Rumor has it that it was the U.S. that supplied the rebels in the first place.

The real pivot, I think, for the overthrow was the Portuguese. They had been distinctly isolated from the upper-class whites, and usually sided with the Hawaiians, but Kalakaua and Liliu ended up alienating them with corruption scandals. If they had decided to take up arms for the Kingdom, alongside native Hawaiian Kingdom subjects, the Republic of Hawaii wouldn't have lasted a year.
Some say Joseph Nawahi was actually supposed to have led the 1895 "counter-revolution" (which might be mnore accurately termed 'resistance') and Wilcox was asked at the last minute, which would explain any disorganization.

As for the corruption scandals, as Jon Osorio says in his book, none of the Kalakaua scandals (involving Gibson) at least were ever proven - that's not to say that Portugeuse and others didn't think they were real...
Walter Murray Gibson was terrible though - he was "Minister of Everything", and had stolen Lanai from the Mormons before ingratiating himself with Kalakaua. He was a haole trying to race-bait kanaka maoli, but he was only in it for himself.

The Kalakaua scandals start with his election against Queen Emma, where the U.S. backed him against the British backed Queen Emma. Then you have the expensive coronation 5 years after he became King. Then the mass amounts of money for the Iolani palace. Then the mission down to Samoa with the gunship Kaimiloa trying to extend his rule, then the Aki opium scandal. Not to mention the "King" Claus Spreckels, who kept loaning money to Kalakaua, knowing he would blow it, and then he could come later and get all kinds of favors.

The Kalakaua scandals were real, all right, even if they never got taken to court. Maybe Kalakaua isn't completely to blame since he was an alcoholic, and easily manipulated, either by the U.S., or by Gibson, or by Spreckels. But nobody liked him at the time, and he lost the popular election before beating Queen Emma by bribing the legislature with U.S. support.
I agree. Kalakaua got caught up in his own web and playing the U.S. American game. Sooner or later things come back to bite you. Inadvertantly, Kalakaua did some good to the consternation of the U.S. whites who took offense at being ruled by a non-white. His genius, however rogue, was to take that world cruise supposedly under the guise of anominity which he fooled the whites in Hawaii and secured relations with other countries and put Hawaii on the map as an equal to the international community. His coronation and palace instilled pride in the native Hawaiians as a visible nation-state with the pomp and circumstance as is demonstrated by all countries. The whites in Hawaii were furious as they saw this expending their money toward the Kingdom rather than their pockets and furthered their delay to annex the Kingdom to the USA. It was okay for the Anglo/Euro/US to continue the Manifest Destiny - colonialism; but not for an upstart little "nigger" as they regarded him to be. It was okay if they did those things but it was unconscionable for a Hawaiian King. I remember sometime back that there was talk of him annexing an island in the Gilbertine Islands and thus, the arrival of the Kilipaki to Hawaii who were then considered to be Hawaiians. I remember the kupuna talking about it.

I find it strange that the King's lapdogs turned on him and accuse him of his degenerate behaviour when they were doing the same thing. Therefore, I say bravo to the King for taking some of those actions. I never cared for Gibson and viewed him as a blood-sucker and a little alamihi scurrying around like the rest of those who were kissing up to the king and conspiring against him behind his back. Muhe'e! King Claus, nonetheless was a royalists to the end and road on the coat-tails of the King. Don't under-estimate the King' actions no matter how scurrilous it may appear. Some of the King's accusers in the opium scandal were complicit and part of the operation.

I favored Queen Emma over Kalakaua and so did some of my kupuna. Since 1826, the US had its designs on Hawaii and thus the vacuous argument of "if the US didn't takeover Hawaii; it would be another country". Of course we know who broke its treaty with Hawaii, don't we?
How do you figure Kalakaua put Hawaii on the map in the international community? Restoration day was in 1843, against Paulet, right?

Kalakaua always seemed like he was more into pomp and circumstance for himself, and I don't know of any particular recognition his world tour generated that Hawaii didn't already have.
I don't think it was necessarily forged but written in by the ones taking the petitions around and putting the names of those consentually by signing their names for them. As witnessed by that journalist Miriam "what's her name" from San Francisco where she surveyed that just about all those she contacted and observed was against the annexation to the US and wanted the Queen restored. Regardless of that fact, US Congress recognized the people's dissent and twice vetoed the annexation bill.
The US Congress didn't care about dissent - they showed that when they annexed Texas by resolution too.

But the real impetus, the one that got the southern racists who opposed annexation to drop their guard, was the Spanish American war. Otherwise, they would've done anything they could to keep Hawaii out of the U.S.. It was the abolitionists and civil rights guys from the north that were more imperialistic at the time. We're just lucky that they allowed for universal suffrage in the 1900 Organic act, and that they kept the Japanese out of power by implicit denial of suffrage until the ones born after 1898 came of voting age. Otherwise the Japanese would've controlled the Territory from the beginning, since they imported so many of them during the Republic of Hawaii period.

Insofar as "signing names for them", it casts a pall on their authenticity and validity. Compared to the statehood petition of 1954, with 120,000 signatures, all of them individually signed, the Ku'e petitions look pretty bleak.
You're comparing apples with oranges when speaking of the petitions. The dynamics are different and two different citizens are involved as was the population of foreigners escalated to vote on the statehood issue. I can't say that it was universal sufferage in the 1900 Organic Act either since Thurston and his fellow conspirators considered all Asians their enemy and Hawaiians incapable of governing themselves thus they should not be voting.
Maine Rep. Springer argued that the PGs would not have maintained its control for more than a half-hour if it wasn't for the landed US troops that protected them and kept them in control.
Blount also argued that the Republic of Hawaii wouldn't last a year - but even though it was opposed by the Cleveland administration (and Gresham in particular), it survived for five years and put down a clandestinely U.S. backed rebellion.

The 162 U.S. troops made little difference except to the psychology of Liliu - she did not have the support of her own Cabinet, and she felt the walls closing in.

Not to mention that when Blount came a few months later, he withdrew the troops, and still nobody raised a finger to support the Queen's grab for power.

RSS

© 2022   Created by Ikaika Hussey.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service