In today’s world, who knew that the kingdom had a man who understood the perils of bestowing power to imperialistic foreigners and acted to prevent this from actually occurring? To have such an antagonist in their midst, it’s no wonder that little is known about Nawahi during a time when foreigners were plotting to take over the kingdom. Here was a man born during the times of great conflict as well as mass immigration (1842-1891) and who understood the mechanical workings and maneuvers of law. The idea that Nawahi supported Queen Emma as moi over Kalakaua makes sense as to why kanaka were upset over Kalakaua’s victory. By not supporting Kalakaua, I believe he sent a message to kanaka that perhaps Kalakaua could be manipulated by these foreigners even though the film suggested that Kalakaua’s dependence on foreigners was because of national debt. Besides being a story about a man whose life ended too soon, it certainly entertains a bunch of what-ifs had Nawahi lived to his senior years. What if Queen Emma was moi; what if she succumbed to the foreign pressures; what if Nawahi was able to rid foreign rule by citing laws that pointed to illegal treaties, illegal constitutions, etc. Would we be in our current dilemma?The Q&A after the film did very little to provide insight, but became a platform for some to attack the funding sources for this film such as the Cooke Foundation and OHA. Let’s face it! Until there is a Hawaiian organization or governmental body not operated by the State of Hawaii nor funded by missionary descendants, there is no money to fund projects such as this. Through the granting process, the Cookes and/or OHA could have turned down the request; therefore shelving this project. Perhaps the woman who was so adamant about these funds being secured should have coughed up the $10,000 herself (I’m making this figure up) or concentrated on the content of this film!
Comments