Note: This is part 14 of a larger webpage. The larger webpage is entitled "Dialogs with a racist -- Bringing to public awareness the explicit, enthusiastic, and unapologetic racism of Trisha Kehaulani Watson, a featured blogger on the public website of the largest circulation newspaper in Hawaii." To see that larger webpage, go to
https://www.angelfire.com/big09a/DialogsRacistWatson.html
14. Roots of a Racial Divide
Trisha Kehaulani Watson dialog started September 21, 2009
Honolulu Advertiser featured blog He Hawai'i Au
http://hehawaiiau.honadvblogs.com/2009/09/21/roots-of-a-racial-divide/
Original essay by Trisha Kehaulani Watson
Let's take for one blog (and only one) the basic premise of Ken Konklin's argument:
"ALL RACES WERE HISTORICALLY FULL PARTNERS IN THE KINGDOM OF HAWAI'I"
Okay, so where did the race problems we have today in Hawai'i come from? If all was swell in the Kingdom, what happened?
After the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893, the provisional government quickly shattered Hawai'i into two categories: Anglo European and Anglo American businessmen with an interest in sugar and other commodities - and everyone else.
From University of Oregon's Distinguished Professor of History James C. Mohr's 2005 book Plague and Fire (Oxford University Press): "Most of the annexationists were also overly racist and patently paternalistic in their motivations. The white Americnas believed they possessed the world's best forms of government, best forms of religion, and best forms of economic development. They regarded Hawaiians, not to mention the islands' Asian majorities, as incapable of enlightened and progressive self-rule..."
This point about the illegal overthrow is critical because it points out that there are actually two problems in Hawai'i related to Hawaiians.
1) A political one. Our nation was illegally overthrown - debate the details all you want. I would simply direct you to the Apology Bill. The United States has acknowledged it's wrong, I'm not sure how much more convincing you need than that.
SECTION 1. ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND APOLOGY.
The Congress -
(1) on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893, acknowledges the historical significance of this event which resulted in the suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people;
(2) recognizes and commends efforts of reconciliation initiated by the State of Hawaii and the United Church of Christ with Native Hawaiians;
(3) apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893 with the participation of agents and citizens of the United States, and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination;
(4) expresses its commitment to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, in order to provide a proper foundation for reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people; and
(5) urges the President of the United States to also acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and to support reconciliation efforts between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people.
2) A racial one. This is complicated and clearly applies to many groups, as many groups were discriminated against. Should Hawaiians get redress different from everyone else who was discriminated against? It's an interesting question. When you take the political claims out of this equation, if that can be done, what does the argument look like?
I believe Hawaiians have a special relationship (legally and under natural law) with Hawai'i (as a government and place). We are the native people. We may not be alone in the fact that we have been discriminated against in Hawai'i, but we are unique in our relationship to Hawai'i.
The UN has recognized the unique rights of indigenous peoples. Hawai'i and its residents should do the same. Thankfully, most do.
[For those who have read the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the UN in 2007, I've copied in the first 8 (of 46) Articles below.]
Article 1
Indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law.
Article 2
Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity.
Article 3
Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Article 4
Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.
Article 5
Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.
Article 6
Every indigenous individual has the right to a nationality.
Article 7
1. Indigenous individuals have the rights to life, physical and mental
integrity, liberty and security of person.
2. Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom, peace and security as distinct peoples and shall not be subjected to any act of genocide or any other act of violence, including forcibly removing children of the group to another group.
Article 8
1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.
2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for:
(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their
integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;
(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;
(c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;
(d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration;
(e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them.
--------------------
Response by hawaiikaihaole:
I really think you are missing the forest for the trees and all of this completely obscures the real question: what is the best course of action today?
Is it in the best interest of Hawaiians today to pursue redress/ compensation/ sovereignty or anything else that attempts to right these wrongs of the past? Or is it in the best interest of the Hawaiian people to realize that they have all the rights, benefits, opportunities as anyone else in Hawaii 2009 and to seize the day?
And is this the legacy that you want to leave Trisha? Are these things the most productive and beneficial things you could be doing for your people? Imagine we took all of this time, energy and money and put it towards the individuals we are talking about. Wouldn’t it have a profound effect?
I feel that it’s time to move past this. And I don’t mean forget the history or minimize the culture. I mean let the anger go. Let the desire for compensation go. The best revenge is to live well. We all need to stop defining ourselves by the wrongs inflicted upon our ancestors. Is it valid? I don’t know. Maybe. Is it helpful or productive? No.
-----------------
Response by Scott:
Too academic for my interest in the subject. Hawaiikaihaole, keep in mind that Dr. Watson is a prof, she needs this conversation to continue in backward, and slightly forward thinking. It's her job security at stake. Think of all the tax payer money that Hawaiians gets, OHA, UH Center for Hawaiian Studies. They need to keep this conversation controversial in order to keep their funding. As long as impressionable Hawaiians are reminded that they are victims, the money keeps pouring in. The anger and desire for compensation will never end.
---------------
Response by Pablo Wegesend:
I was a latecomer to Ms Watson's previous blog posts on "white privillege" and "haoles" . But because I was late, I don't think anyone saw the following comment that I wrote to it! This was what I wrote
Maybe in Punahou it's different, but the OVER-WHELMING MAJORITY of part-white/ part non-white people in Hawaii (including myself - part European/ part Latin American) emphasize their non-white part of themselves!
I even remember in a 6th grade class, we were to talk about our cultural background. One girl, who looked 100% European, whom I was expecting to talk about Ireland, Britain, etc was talking about being Filipino. She didn't look it, but if that's what she is ....
The whole point is that in Hawaii (outside of Ms Watson's Punahou environment) those of European ancestry go to great lenghts to de-emphasize their European roots.
Meanwhile, someone could be only 10% Native Hawaiian (and look mostly European or Asian) emphasize their Hawaiian side over everything else!
Yeah, I know, we got some European-Americans in East Honolulu and some Native Hawaiians living in tents in Leeward Oahu.
But we also got upper-class Native Hawaiians driving big SUVs and living in East Honolulu, Kailua and Ms Watson's Manoa, and I also see European-American bums on Hotel Street, Honolulu Stadium Park and Aala Park
The whole point is NOT every Native Hawaiian lives in the ghetto and NOT every European-American lives in a mansion!
Watson said in a previous post:
Bottom line is: whether or not there is actually is a "kill haole day" is irrelevant, because I can find you thousands of Micronesians, Asians, Polynesians, and other minorities who would gladly trade your "kill haole day" for their dispossessed and painful lives.
In other words, no sympathy for European-American students bullied for nothing but their race. Remember, these kids WERE'T EVEN BORN YET in 1893! They didn't choose to grow up in a place where they're a minority. In fact, some of them are of Czech, Slovenian, Slovakian, Bosnian, Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Lativain or Estonian ancestry! WHO HAVE THEY CONQUERED? NO ONE!
But Waton implied with the italicized quote "too bad"!
What about those European-American kids in schools where they are MEGA-OUTNUMBERED by Asians, Polyneisans and Micronesians.
(That's how it is in most schools outside of Punahou, Ms Watson)! They would GLADLY trade their white skin for yellow or brown!
At least, with yellow or brown, they got more people to back them up in a fight. White? You're on your own in most Hawaii schools NOT named Punahou!
Another thing, yeah I got a German last name, but I'm mostly Latin American and have brown skin, so I wouldn't recieve any "white privillege" anyways. I'd probably get shot by the neo-Nazis before Watson does!
I understand Watson is still traumatized about being one of the few Native Hawaiians in a European-dominated Punahou!
But she totally dismisses what it's like in other Hawaii schools, were white European-Americans are a TINY minority.
White privillege in Hawaii? Doesn't exist OUTSIDE of Punahou, East Honolulu, Kailua or the military schools.
---------------------
Response by Ken Conklin:
Trisha's first sentence said "Let's take for one blog (and only one) the basic premise of Ken Konklin's argument ALL RACES WERE HISTORICALLY FULL PARTNERS IN THE KINGDOM OF HAWAI'I"
Well, that's not my "basic premise", but it is certainly one among many premises. I took a lot of space describing my fundamental principles (i.e., basic premises), and I am mightily resisting the urge to repeat them to remind her what they are.
However, "I rise to a point of personal privilege" (see Robert's Rules). I need to correct Trisha's misspelling of my name. Sometimes the pushers of racial entitlements and racial supremacy for ethnic Hawaiians show their disrespect for me because I actually dare to engage them and argue against them. They show their disrespect by intentionally spelling my name as Konklin, or even KKKonklin, as was done by other commenters previously on this blogsite. Trisha knows how to spell my name, and has seen it correctly spelled repeatedly. Her choice of spelling is no accident, because the letters K and C are separated from each other by a wide distance on every keyboard. So, since she has trashed me by intentionally misspelling my name, I will trash her by spelling her name "Trasha" until such time as I see her spelling my name correctly. "Trasha" also has kaona. Goodie.
TODAY'S RACIAL DIVIDE IN HAWAII -- WHO ARE THE DIVIDERS ?
Before turning to history to see where were the historical roots of Hawaii's racial divide, I want to emphasize what are the roots of Hawaii's racial divide right now.
Every ethnic group in Hawaii works to preserve its cultural heritage. Some groups are more zealous than others about trying to have a "Japanese Chamber of Commerce" or "Filipino Cultural Center" or Chinese See Dai Doo Society, or to elect "their people" to seats in the legislature. There are very few comparable Caucasian-focus institutions: things like the recent Greek festival at McCoy Pavilion, the Hibernia Society, St. Patrick's Day, etc.
But ethnic Hawaiians are the only group in Hawaii that owns three branches of the state government, has over 160 federally funded programs racially exclusionary for their benefit, has a school system worth more than $9 Billion which ruthlessly excludes anyone outside its racial group, and has leaders pushing hard to create a racially exclusionary government and start carving up the lands of Hawaii along racial lines. Ethnic Hawaiians are the only group that has people like Trasha splashing their racial supremacist propaganda all over the internet and the media, and getting very little opposition to it. If any "haole" publicly made demands for haole supremacy like Trasha makes for ethnic Hawaiian supremacy, they would be tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on Mufi Hanneman's rail.
Trasha has repeatedly mentioned the struggle of African-Americans, citing long passages from the writings of Martin Luther King. A lot of Hawaiian activists look to Black history for inspiration. But let's remember that there were two opposite wings of the Black civil rights movement. One was characterized by flat-out racists like Louis Farrakhan, Bobby Seale, the early Malcolm X (before his pilrimmage to Mecca), the Black Panthers, Nation of Islam, etc. -- people who said the white man is literally the Devil, and who pushed for racial separatism. Fortunately the other wing of the Black civil rights movement won -- the integrationists such as the NAACP, Urban League, and especially Martin Luther King.
Guess which side of that divide Trasha and her ilk are on? The roots of the racial divide in today's Hawaii are Trasha and her buddies at OHA, DHHL, Kamehameha Schools, Papa Ola Lokahi, Alu Like, the Hawaiian charter schools. There are some ethnic Hawaiians who are on the right side of history, including my dear friends Professor Rubellite Kawena Johnson, Sandra Puanani Burgess, Evelyn Arakaki, and others whose names I shall not reveal in order to save them from having a target painted on their backs. But so far, in Hawaii, the "bad guys" are winning, perhaps because the silent majority of integrationist and pro-American ethnic Hawaiians have been intimidated into silence by the shrill voices of Trasha and her ilk.
Read my list of fundamental principles again, and you'll see that all of them are focused on the equality of all people in the eyes of God, the equality of all people under the law, the unity of all Hawaii's people. Read Trasha's posts on this blog, and you'll see they are all focused on special rights for one race. Who is it that's pushing for a racial divide? Not Ken Conklin. Not Aloha For All. Not the Grassroot Institute. Not the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
THE RACIAL DIVIDE IN THE KINGDOM, REPUBLIC, AND TERRITORY.
Trasha and her ilk love to point out Caucasian racists. Yes, of course there were some. For example James Morgan, chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs who wrote the Morgan Report, was a Southern racist. But so was James Blount who wrote the Blount Report for Grover Cleveland.
The Massey Case shows Caucasian racists at their worst, which is why Trasha loves to keep bringing it up.
Consider Sanford B. Dole, President of the Provisional Government and the Republic of Hawaii. He was most definitely not a racist. He grew up living among and playing with Hawaiians, and spoke Hawaiian fluently. He was a member of the Royal Court. He adopted a native girl, Lizzie Napoleon, who might in fact have been his biological daughter (that question was never resolved) -- Nainoa Thompson is a great great grandson of Sanford B. Dole, either biologically or by hanai. Lizzie loved Sanford Dole so deeply that she named her first son Sanford Ballard Dole Low. But that child died in 1889. Her last child, a boy, she once again named Sanford Ballard Dole Low (1905-1964).
The Constitution of the Republic of Hawaii was written by a Constitutional convention which included at least five native Hawaiians. The Speaker of the House of the Republic was John Kaulukou, a full-blooded native who had formerly been a royalist. Somehow the Caucasians had no problem working closely with the natives to create and sustain the Republic -- they were not racists. The Constitution, and the list of members of the con-con, is on my website; but if I post it Trasha will simply say I'm citing my own writing so I won't bother.
Trasha and her ilk like to trash the Reform Constitution (Bayonet Constitution of 1887). (1) One reason they trash it is because it included a requirement that in order to vote, a citizen was required to own property or have a good income; this had the effect of eliminating a lot of natives from the voting rolls. However, that was not the first Constitution with property/incme requirements for voting. Lot Kamehameha V Constitution of 1864 also had such requirements. The Hawaiian elite and Caucasian elite were both eager to disenfranchise the riff-raff low-lifes who included both some natives who were impoverished and also Caucasian ship-jumping beach bums. (2) Another reason they trash the Constitution of 1887 is because it was not ratified according to the legal process required for ratifying a Constitution -- however, the same is true of the Constitution of 1864, which Lot proclaimed unilaterally after he dismissed the legislature that had refused to approve it. (3) Another reason they trash the Constitution of 1887 is because it stripped Asians of voting rights, including those who had been born or naturalized in Hawaii and had previously been voters. However, Kalakaua signed this Constitution. True, he signed it at gunpoint. But was he King or wasn't he? If he was King, he must take the blame, and he could have refused or resigned on principle. The truth is that the number of Asians in Hawaii was getting so large they would soon become a majority, so the Hawaiians and the Caucasians were both happy to strip the Asians of voting rights.
A major Hawaiian racist during the Kingdom, Republic, and early Territory was Robert Wilcox. Interestingly, he was half Caucasian (just like Trasha), but he was extremely racist against haoles. Read the biography "Unconquerable Rebel: Robert W. Wilcox and Hawaiian Politics, 1880-1903" by Ernest Andrade, Jr. I have taken extensive notes and quotes, which you'll find on my website.
Trasha uses the concept of "indigenous rights" and cites the recent U.N Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. First let me say that even the U.N. has never been able to define the word "indigenous." They have tried and failed for about 25 years.
Here in modern Hawaii, the words "indigenous", "aboriginal", "native" are political buzzwords devoid of real meaning. They are merely synonyms for "ethnic Hawaiian." Among all the people of the world who might be called "indigenous", ethnic Hawaiians have the shortest tenure in the land they now call their "ancestral home." The real ancestral home for ethnic Hawaiians is Tahiti, because the Tahitians arrived here about 6-7 centuries ago with their war god, ali'i social system and human sacrifice; and wiped out the previous group of settlers from Marquesas. If ethnic Hawaiians are to be called "indigenous" then the white people of England must also be called indigenous, because the Norman invasion of England took place centuries before the Tahitian invasion of Hawaii; or if you want to go farther back, then the Angles and Saxons settlements in England took place before the Marquesan settlement of Hawaii. So, are you ready to see Caucasians from England showing up at the World Conference of Indigenous Peoples? Anyway, who got somewhere first, many centuries ago, is really irrelevant. We're all here together now, and we simply cannot have one race asserting supremacy over others. I agree that truly indigenous people should have special rights and protections -- not because they got there first but because they are isolated from the outside world and utterly unable to survive without daily intimate contact with their local environment for a subsistence lifestyle -- not at all descriptive of today's ethnic Hawaiians. If you want to see indigenous people, go to the Amazon River basin, remote regions of Africa or Asia.
In conclusion: Racism can be found everywhere in all nations throughout history, and it is found among individuals of all racial groups. Looking for "the roots of racial divide" is pointless. Today is 2009, not 1893. We will not cure the racism of the past by imposing a new racism. The least worrisome aspect of racism is someone's inner feelings and attitudes -- nobody really cares how a racist feels as long as she keeps it to herself. It's what a racist does to other people, or tries to do, that should worry us. The evil of racism is establishing, or trying to establish, power for one racial group over people of other racial groups for no reason other than race. And that's exactly what Trasha's blog is all about. That is the root of racism in Hawaii today.
-----------------------
Trisha Kehaulani Watson replies to hawaiikaihaole:
Hi HKH,
I'll start with this - I'm not angry (maybe frustrated, but not angry). But I love the questions you raise. My response: It's not for me to decide. I think Hawaiians should get what they have not gotten all these years - the opportunity to decide for themselves.
"what is the best course of action today?
Is it in the best interest of Hawaiians today to pursue redress/ compensation/ sovereignty or anything else that attempts to right these wrongs of the past? Or is it in the best interest of the Hawaiian people to realize that they have all the rights, benefits, opportunities as anyone else in Hawaii 2009 and to seize the day?"
I think this is a critical point for Hawaiians. I would say that many (most) think that redress is the route to go. But I'd rather put this question out to everyone - but I think it's such a great question. What is the best course of action for Hawaiians today and why?
Everyone?
Thanks for the great comment.
trish
------------------
Trisha Kehaulani Watson reply to Ken:
Ken,
My apologies. The misspelling of your name was completely unintentional. I actually had to look - I don't use your name often enough to realize I misspelled it.
I wanted to finish writing this before my son woke up this morning and it was just a typo. Nothing more.
I've changed it in the blog.
trisha
-------------------
Response from Scott
I like the level of civility in the blog today. I hope it will stay like this. I don't have much to add, but I have, at times, been critical of Ken for his ramblings. Today I read his whole post, and I think it is dead on. It seems like it's Dr. Watson vs. Us, the ones who oppose her. She knows it. I would be impressed if more thoughtful people spoke to defend her. Alas, it is not to be. I think it speaks towards the larger picture of the battle she choses to wage on this blog. Take it for what you will, but Ken's post today was brilliant. I take these blogs on a day to day basis, sometimes agreeing with Dr. Watson, sometimes not.
I challenge Dr. Watson, or Hipoli, or any of the forgotten "bomb throwers" on this blog to challenge Ken's post.
also, Dr. Watson, you asked us, your readers, to decide what is best for Hawaiians (post #5). I'd give my opinion, but it is clear from the history on this blog that neither you, nor your supporters want to hear a mainland haole's opinion. We're not your students. On this blog we look to you to dictate that portion of the conversation.
----------------
Response from hawaiikaihaole:
Before you answer Trisha’s question, remember that you can dedicate all of your precious life to this fight against the past. You can even pass it to your children and they can carry that burden throughout theirs and it may linger still. Jut look at Israel/ Palestine. That is a people mired in the past, passing their anger or frustration down to their children and grandchildren. Their battle is thousands of years old and has afflicted the people and poisoned the land.
I also thought Pablo hit the nail on the head about the subjective nature of your race. Going back far enough, we're all African, right?
--------------------
Response from Scott:
I would be truly impressed if Dr. Watson addresses Pablo's post. His post is rather groundbreaking (for this blog). Perhaps Dr. Watson will continue her propaganda, but with such quality responses by Pablo and Ken today, this may be a tipping point for this blog. We'll see. Then again, we don't know what kind on conversations take place in the academic offices of the Center for Hawaiian Studies at UH.....this blog may be a desperate outreach effort.
--------------------
Response from hawaiikaihaole:
From Ken:
"Racism can be found everywhere in all nations throughout history, and it is found among individuals of all racial groups. Looking for "the roots of racial divide" is pointless. Today is 2009, not 1893. We will not cure the racism of the past by imposing a new racism. The least worrisome aspect of racism is someone's inner feelings and attitudes -- nobody really cares how a racist feels as long as she keeps it to herself. It's what a racist does to other people, or tries to do, that should worry us. The evil of racism is establishing, or trying to establish, power for one racial group over people of other racial groups for no reason other than race."
This is dead on. Especially the last sentence. How can anyone disagree?
-------------------
Response by TITA INSIDE:
Aloha Kehaulani-great topic! What the naysayers tend to forget is that by just watering down our main issue and labeling it "race" is no longer fooling us. They want to just forget that a complete NATION was taken/stolen so-It's a NATION THING...STUPID! We do not need to be told that many nationalities were included as citizens of the Hawaiian Kingdom. And welcomed they were too! Duh. Race had nothing to do with it.
The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is on the right track, however, you have to be aware the the "powerful" nations-like USA-oppose this charter adamently. The UN professes to be for the good of the world but allows the US to continue to act like a "spoiled child" .
The spoiled child strategy is getting quite stale though. The US, like many of their advocates chose to reject the facts and that is the hurdle that we must overcome. Even the US declared their independence from a country far from their shores-why shouldn't we? Then after us, the rest of the countries that have been colonized. But then, if that happened how could they dictate to us and control our resources?
Please remember, the US is a "settler" citizenry and is an "idealistic" country with no loyalty to their country of origin-I guess that stealing other peoples lives/countries was easier. I for one will not be sad to see the fall of that empire!
----------------
Reply by Trisha Kehaulani Watson:
I'm going to let this stand as my response to the other responses. It's exactly what I would have pointed out - the issue is one of nationhood.
-----------------
Reply by Ken Conklin:
Trisha now says: "I'm going to let this stand as my response to the other responses. It's exactly what I would have pointed out - the issue is one of nationhood."
No it isn't. The issue is one of race. That's why Trisha has repeatedly made such a big deal with the word "indigenous" and has cited the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. Back in the day, during the Kingdom, the word "indigenous" was never mentioned.
There was no assertion that natives should have special rights over and above the rights of the Caucasians who were full partners both politically and economically. Caucasians comprised most cabinet ministers, nearly all department heads and judges, and 1/4 to 1/3 of the members of the legislature. About 90% of the income in Hawaii was earned by Caucasian businesses, which were therefore paying about 90% of the taxes. All this happened under the sovereign authority of Hawaii's monarchs, making decisions to implement the self-determination of the natives. If the monarchs "blew it" by making full partners out of the haoles that's too bad -- that's what self-determination is all about -- you make your choices and live with the consequences. One example of a Polynesian nation which has preserved its independence and its monarchy is Tonga. I see a lot of Tongans coming to Hawaii under U.S. sovereignty; I do not see any Hawaiians moving to live in Tonga because things are so wonderful there in an independent Polynesian nation under a royal King.
Here's a thought-experiment. Take a pair of (really big) scissors and cut the rope that connects Hawaii to the U.S. mainland. Now Hawaii is an independent nation. Ethnic Hawaiians are a 20% minority; therefore outvoted 4-1; and everybody has full equality. It's Hawaii just the way we are today, except no connection to the U.S. Would Trisha be happy with that? Of course not. She thinks ethnic Hawaiians should have special "indigenous" rights, perhaps including exclusive right to determine foreign policy, immigration, and land-use policy. She thinks ethnic Hawaiians should rule Hawaii for no reason other than race (disguised as "indigeneity"). That cannot happen as long as Hawaii is part of the U.S.; therefore her first goal is about nationhood.
Here's another thought-experiment. Turn back the clock to January 10, 1893. The monarchy still exists. The U.S.S. "Boston" is still on a training cruise far from Honolulu. The Kingdom Legislature is still in session, getting ready to pass the lottery, distillery, and opium bills which the Queen has bribed them to vote for in order to get badly needed revenue for her treasure chest. The Queen has recently appointed a new cabinet, after dismissing the previous one that she had appointed, after dismissing the previous one ... there were (I forget exactly how many) maybe 30 different cabinets during the Kalakaua/Liliuokalani regime. Tremendous political instability.
The nation is operating under the (Bayonet) Constitution of 1887 that the King had been forced to sign by an entirely local revolution of 1500 armed men who had surrounded the Palace (zero U.S. troops involved).
Talk of revolution in the air, because the Queen is threatening to unilaterally proclaim a new Constitution. The Honolulu Rifles is an armed militia under mostly haole control, with 3-4 times as many men as the Royal Guard and Police Department combined. The economy is in a shambles, and there's a national debt of nearly $4 Million -- more than the retail value of all the government lands and crown lands combined (based on land valuations at the probate of the recently deceased Princess Bernice Pauahi's will). Trisha now has the status quo ante -- before the "armed invasion" by the U.S. Nobody has anything to apologize for, except maybe the Queen should apologize for having a corrupt and incompetent government.
So, now what? There's gonna be a revolution. The revolution will be led by haole business interests sick and tired of corruption and taxes. The natives are getting restless, and want the Queen to take back control of the government and put the haoles in their place. Some haoles agree with the natives; some natives agree with the haoles. The natives are threatening to use arson to burn down the homes and businesses of the haoles if they try to overthrow the government. This is no idle threat -- only four years ago Robert Wilcox had led his armed militia in an attack on the Palace to overthrow kalakaua at the request of Liliuokalani, and 7 men had been killed and hand grenades had blown the roof off the Royal Bungalow. The haoles from England, Germany, France, and America are all hoping that U.S. ship will return very soon in order to put peacekeepers ashore who will protect lives and property and stop expected rioting.
Well, that's where we'll leave it. Maybe the U.S.S. Boston hits a reef off Maui and sinks. Hawaii is totally on its own. You figure out what will happen next, who will win, and whether the outcome will be good for Hawaii and for the ethnic Hawaiians.
==============
You may now
or
GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE
Send comments or questions to:
Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com
(c) Copyright 2009 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved
