Hawaii’s Historiographical Concern
For many of us in Hawaii, what we know or understand of Hawaii’s past comes to us from what we have read, been taught or told. However, one of the major problems within the written historical record is that its publications often dates to the time after the “overthrow” of the Hawaiian Islands, time when the Oligarchy, a few Western businessmen, had taken over and declared martial law. The result of this takeover was the banning of the Hawaiian language both in written work and in the educational arena.[49] Therefore, the current scholarship written, often uses a traditional methodology of historiography based on Euro-American colonial and state-sponsored historical interpretations as well as English language translations. This is why it is of utmost importance to understand the potential biases of these sources that were printed between 1893- 2000. For many of these historians, it seems, that the purposes and arguments claimed were designed to tow the colonial narrative, reflecting a hegemonic historiography. Therefore, “Hawaii’s flawed historiography has resulted in a perpetuating discourse that has become embedded in our legal scholarship and enshrined in case law as stare decisis.”[50] Overall, this unwillingness or inability by historiographers to access the vast ʻolelo Hawaii archive, ignores the extensive legal body of work that is found in ʻōlelo Hawaii: “international treaties, legal form book, the Hawaiian Constitutions, a legal digest, kingdom statutes, Privy council minutes, civil and criminal cases, and so much more.”[51]
A Historiographical Analysis
Many historians consider R. S. Kukendall, author of the series The Hawaiian Kingdom (published between 1953-1967), as one of the leading authorities of the Kingdomʻs history. [52] Kuykendall arrived in Hawaii, in 1922, at the height of colonial control, twenty-two years after the territory had been realized. He was brought to Hawaii by the Historical Commission of the Territory of Hawaii to record the history of the Kingdom and write a history of Hawaii for the public schools.[53] However, when one looks at his work, its accuracy comes into question. Examples of some of his sources, are deeply concerning. One is the Polynesian (1840-64), an English language publication that provided news to the Haole community, was largely critical of the monarchy and pro-annexationist. Another example is Kuykendall’s use of his primary source documents from the Hawaiian Kingdom government, which were in fact only the English translations and subject to mis-interpretations. Kuykendall also utilizes the historical records of Dole and Alexander, both of whom were a part of the Oligarchic system during the Provisional Government and the Republic of Hawaii. Therefore, the historical record is not written through a Hawaiian cultural understanding, instead Hawaiian Kingdom laws are viewed through Western perceptions.[54]
Another example of this Eurocentric misinterpretation, is Kuykendall’s description of Hawaii’s traditional land system as being “operated oppressively upon the lowest order in the feudal scale,” since Hawaii’s maka’āinana (commoners) were not serfs of the land.[55] By perpetuating the perception that the makaʻāinana were oppressed, Kuykendall is falsely equating European feudal constructs with that of Hawaiian traditional land system, thereby justifying the current fee-simple system of today. Instead he is ignoring the conceptual aspects of traditional land use which were more of a mutual symbiotic relationship between aliʻi and makaʻāinana, where the makaʻāinana had more rights to the land.[56] Aliʻi on the other hand, served as konohiki (protectors/caregivers of the ʻahupuaʻa [a portion of land]) at the whim of the aliʻi nui (high chief) and could be easily replaced if they treated the makaʻāinana poorly. This misconception becomes a problem in searching the land laws of Hawaii because it construes the true intent of the Great Mahele, which was simply to give palapala (a document of any kind) to the traditional land system in a layering of ownership.[57] This historiographic analysis also establishes an absence of any of the corrupt land laws that were created to divest the indigenous peoples of their lands. Instead, history is colored to blame the Hawaiian chiefs, or the people themselves for the loss of their lands. In researching such a sensitive topic, it is important to be aware of this colonial bias that has permeated the historical record.[58]
One of the first studies to highlight land rights of the Kānaka Maoli is “Native Hawaiian Land Rights,” (1975) by Neil Levy.[59] Levy, a legal historian who used a Eurocentric interpretive approach in his analysis of his sources. The purpose of Levy’s research was to share a creative way to resolve the issues of land loss in Hawaii, and how lands might in fact be returned to the Hawaiian people, arguing that the state could allot their land (under the presumption it was their land). Levy, used both Kuykendall and the legal documents of the Revised Statutes of 1925 for the basis of his research. While the Statutes are a primary source, they should still be strongly questioned since the Revised Statutes of 1925 were written by the new illegal government, laws illegally created for the purpose of dispossessing the Kānaka Maoli and benefitting the White oligarchs. These interpretations of the Great Māhele and the Kuleana Awards, that constituted the division and documentation of all the lands in Hawaii during the time of Kamehameha the third (king from 1825-1854), were easily misconstrued to benefit the sugar planters of Hawaii.[60] It is therefore important to contemplate the effect that a land-greedy oligarchical power might have on the historical record when doing research. However, Levy does not take this concern into account and relays his information as though it cannot be discounted.
Additionally, his territorial bias can be seen in his claims that Queen Liliʻuokalani, “in order to prevent futile bloodshed, she relinquished her governmental authority.”[61] This comment is false, ignoring the fact that she “relinquished” under protest fully believing that the United States government would help to reinstate her authority under their treaty of friendship (1849).[62] Her actual words were:
“Now to avoid any collision of armed forces and perhaps the loss of life, I do under protest, and impelled by said force, yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States, upon the facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representatives and reinstate me in my authority.”[63]
Whereas, Levy infers she gave up and that was that; and does not consider the efforts that were taken by the queen and her people to try and restore the kingdom: the letters written to the President and legislators in support of the kingdom, the armed attempt to retake the throne, and the Kūʻē petition, which was signed by over 21,000 citizens of Hawaii for the restoration of kingdom. Plus, Levy disregards the Blount Report that deemed the coup as an illegal act.
It also needs to be addressed that in describing the land system of Hawaii, he utilizes the Western comparison “to a feudal system” of Medieval Europe, rather than attempting to explain the Hawaiian concepts of land use; it cannot be compared. [64] Within the Western concepts of feudalism, the Lord maintains total control of not only the lands, but everything on the land including the serfs who lived there. In the traditional Hawaiian land system, in contrast, the konohiki (guardians) watched over the lands for the king and lived in a symbiotic relationship with the makaʻāinana (commoners) who were free to leave if they chose; they were not slaves to the land. [65]
Levy also utilizes the Shoal of Times (1968) by Gavan Daws, as one of his resources.[66] This book has since been critiqued by numerous renown modern Hawaiian historians and cultural experts as being dated and biased in its information.[67] This is evidenced in Daws’ own critique of himself:
The Hawaiians were not in the habit of explaining themselves or even exposing themselves in written form…In general, they did not initiate social action but were acted upon. I claim no special gift of empathy; wishing to understand the Hawaiians I found I could not, and I ended by merely trying to make sense out of what their white contemporaries said about them.[68]
Consequently, Daws equally took the traditional Eurocentric approach, depending largely on Kuykendall and English language sources, largely regurgitating knowledge written for the benefit of the oligarchs.[69]
Rethinking the Historical Discourse
As the awakening of the Hawaiian Sovereignty movement, in the 1970s and the reemergence of ʻōlelo Hawaii speakers brought to light the illegality of the overthrow of Hawaii, public sentiment spurred the State of Hawaii Department of Education’s need to revise the older Hawaiian studies textbooks for Hawaii’s schools, primarily because the earlier textbooks were filled with disinformation about the overthrow.[70] For example, in Hawaii: the Aloha State, Helen Bauer represents Queen Liliʻūokalani has an incompetent and selfish woman who is threatening the freedoms of her people; however, the “people” she addressed were in fact the white elite, not the makaʻāinana (Kānaka Maoli commoners) who she was working to reinstate their right to vote. University of Hawaiʻi’s College of Education sponsored A History of Hawaii (published between 1989-1999) by Linda Menton & Eileen Tamura, making it part of the curriculum standard in the 1990s.[71] As it was state sponsored it is not surprising that the author’s paint a history that justifies the annexation and statehood of Hawaii. The authors’ methodology tended to lean towards a traditional chronological approach, focusing on four key areas, however each using slightly different methodologies: politics and government (legal documentation); the economy (economic data and statistics); social history (cultural, societal, and demographic data) and land history (legal documentation). While it did include primary source documentation between the 1900-1970s; the earlier kingdom history was dependent largely on Kuykendall as a source. Although, it does reframe the historical record of the overthrow, no longer blaming the “overthrow” on the actions of the “strong-willed” queen who wanted “too much power;”[72] it instead, lays the blame on the actions of the missionaries, while minimizing the culpability of the United States.[73] The textbook also is heavily influenced by the earlier Western thinking influences of previous colonial and territorial historians, retaining the same land use arguments that can be found in previous history books, basically justifying the loss of land as one that was the result of Kamehameha III’s short sightedness, and the ignorance of the Kānaka Maoli.[74] For example, in its reference of the Great Māhele, it defines māhele as dividing, thereby mistranslating the Kānaka Maoli concepts of sharing and responsibility and labeling the new land “divisions” as fee-simple. Nevertheless, it is a relatively good source for some information on the overthrow, the power of the Oligarchy, the Hawaiian Homestead Act, and the Kaho’olawe Protests of the 1970s, since it is unafraid to point out how the oligarchy exploited their power and affected the lives of the Kānaka Maoli.
Stolen Kingdom: An American Conspiracy (1992) by Richard Budnick, was published about the same time as Menton and Tamura’s textbook, and although it was not a Hawaii DOE authorized instructional textbook, it was utilized by many Hawaiian studies teachers, myself included since it outlined the political and economic affiliations of the participants of the “overthrow.”[75] Budnick’s methodology also took a traditional approach, heavily dependent on Kuykendall as a secondary source, and only utilizing English language primary sources. His work, however, is more of a microhistory, focusing primarily on the conspiratorial threats to the the Hawaiian Kingdom and the eventual “overthrow” of its sovereignty. Budnick argues that the desire for economic power was the primary interest of the White sugar-planters and businessmen who instigated the “overthrow.” One of the few primary sources that Budnick utilized was the Blount Report (1893-1894), written in the English language, was an investigation of the events of the “overthrow” by a representative of the President of the United States. James Blount, spent a year in Hawaii, gathering interviews from both supporters of the queen, as well as those participating in the “overthrow” resulting in an unbiased analysis of the events and legal principles that were at the heart of each groups arguments.[76] The result of the report declared that the “overthrow” was an illegal action and that the queen should be returned to her throne. Not only did this document point out the conspiracy and the illegal actions of the Committee of Safety, but it also debunks the past historical records that the missionaries were at the root of the overthrow. In using this the Blount Report, Budnick highlights who the actual perpetrators were and their connections to the sugar planters, “the Big Five,” and recognizes America’s culpability.[77] It further focuses on the back-room deals within the conspiracy, therefore it is an important resource for information on the power of the sugar industry, and those that were the cause of much of the lands being lost to Kānaka Maoli.
Cultural Revitalization, Sovereign Activism, and Hawaiian Immersion’s Impact on Hawaii’s Historiography
It was not until the 1990’s that historians began to take more creative methodological approaches within their work: studies on culture, gender, legal pluralism, settler-colonialism, international law, ethnic interactions and much, much more. This shift reflected the expansion of the sovereignty movement; along with the strengthening and growing independence within the University system both at Manoa and in Hilo; or possibly, it was because of the growing number of ʻōlelo Hawaii speakers. Whatever the case, a rethinking of the sources used, and tone of many of the historical works began to address the earlier absences of Indigenous sources. Yet, for some, while they appeared to intersect more with Kānaka Maoli interests, those that were supported through government funding often times still were bound to the colonial talking points.
One such book was the Native Hawaiian Rights Handbook (1991) edited by Melody Kapilialoha MacKenzie.[78] Even though it was another product of the Hawaiian renaissance, its publication was sponsored by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Hawaii State semi-autonomous organization, much like that of the Office of American Indian Affairs.[79] For many Native Hawaiian sovereignty groups, there is an underlying distrust of this organization because of its connections to the State. The book originally was published for the purpose of educating “Native Hawaiians”[80] on their rights related to lands, gathering, water, ceded lands, and burial. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs, in the production of the book, sought out thirteen Hawaiian studies scholars to contribute, under the tutelage of the William Richard School of Law at the University of Hawaii-Manoa. Its basis for information prior to the overthrow, is again primarily that of Kuykendall, Levy and the Revised Laws of 1925, which was discussed previously.[81]
Nevertheless, MacKenzie, through her methodology of focus on legal history, does expand on her primary sources by searching archival records that include numerous court cases. Yet, these still are primarily using the English translations. She also attempts to bring an indigenous voice to her work by utilizing the early Kānaka Maoli Historians’ work of David Malo[82] and Samuel Kamakau,[83] as well as trying to address “Native Hawaiian” concepts through such work as the Hawaiian linguistic expert Mary Kawena Pukui’s Nānā i Ke Kumu (1972)[84]; each being unavailable to previous non-Hawaiian language speaking historians since translations were not completed until the late 70s. Therefore, as a source this text is one that can be utilized for a basic understanding of the laws and rights of the Hawaiian people, while at the same time realizing that the information as been colored by colonial rule. For example, its conceptual understanding of the Great Māhele is based on the research of Kuykendall.
In From a Native Daughter: Colonialism & Sovereignty in Hawaii (1993) by Haunani Kay Trask, the voice of a strong Hawaiian activist can be heard.[85] Trask, who had been a professor of Hawaiian Studies at the University of Hawaii, was at the forefront of the Hawaiian rights movement in Hawaii since the early 1970s. Trask makes a stong argument against the Americanization and tourism of Hawaii, and for Hawaii’s decolonization of Hawaiian lands. Trask’s methodology analyzes the colonial-settler impact on indigenous lives. While much of her focus was on Hawaiʻi’s sovereignty movement, utilizing oral testimony and oral histories, as well as video and photographic documentation; she also drew on comparisons that exist throughout the Pacific islands of similar struggles and the work that the international community has done to benefit indigenous populations. Yet, Trask, like so many others, also uses Kuykendall as one of her sources in researching Kingdom history, therefore viewing the Great Mahele through the eyes of Western historians, [86] and blaming the missionaries for the “overthrow.”[87] The majority of her book however, utilizes autobiographical events, primary sources and interviews. Trask articulates her research through a Hawaiian bias and a very anti-Haole (anti-caucasian/foreigner) viewpoint. Nevertheless, one cannot discount her work since it comes from a Native perspective and world view towards the years of Hawaiian oppression by the colonial powers and represents the Kānaka Maoli experience. From a Native Daughter reflects a common sympathy that is shared by many within the Hawaiian Rights Movements, only through self-determination in what ever form, can Hawaiʻi state-sponsored oppression end. Trask also gives a good historical background that led up to the early protests of Kalama Valley, Kaho’olawe, Sand Island, Makua Valley and others, based on personal narratives, interviews and oral histories. She relays not only the connections of land loss at the hands of big corporations, but also at the hands of the United States military.[88]
Similarly, both, “The Birth of the Modern Hawaiian Movement” (1987) by Haunani Kay Trask and “Home, Homelessness, and Homeland in the Kalama Valley: Re-Imagining a Hawaiian Nation Through a Property Dispute” (2006) by Neal Milner, the authors accurately portray from the point-of-view of the participants of the events and legal issues that surrounded the evictions of Kalama Valley in early 1970s. Their methodology is also quite similar, taking a more interdisplinary approach: drawing on eyewitness accounts, oral narratives, interviews, journalistic reporting, as well as the expertise of sociologists, anthropologists, legal scholars and economists. Although some of their secondary sources are colored by colonial bias since many of them were written during the 1971 protests, they counter this issue through their primary source interviews of those who were part of the early protest movement, as well as the property owners. Trask’s article, however, shares a chronological history of the Hawaiian Rights movement from its birth at Kalama Valley up to the beginning of the Sovereignty movements. By utilizing interviews, newspaper articles and speeches they both demonstrate a strong resource for the events and causes of the early protest movements. The protests and the legal battles that resulted, laid the groundwork for the sovereign activists that would follow, testing the waters of the jurisdiction argument, and the validity of Native land titles vs. corporate interests.
In addition, Hawaii the Fake State: A Nation in Captivity (2008) Aron Ardaiz, like MacKenzie, uses a legal-historical approach in his methodology, analyzing the laws, constitutions, resolutions and treaties. In over half the book, Ardaiz, includes copies of many of the actual primary source documents used as his basis for arguing the illegality of Statehood and its laws.[89] Yet, his legal approach is different in that he also includes legal definitions through such sources as Black’s Law, International law and the United States governmentʻs legal court cases, for such concepts as de jure, de facto, declaration, color of law, admission by omission, Ex post facto, and many others.[90] Originally from California, Ardaiz came to Hawaii in 1971, married a Hawaiian activist and became part of the movements that followed; therefore, as shown in the title, he sets out to prove the fallacy of the State of Hawaiʻi’s existance. While this book is not “peer” reviewed in the academic sence, his book is one of the documents that many Hawaiian Rights organizations are utilizing as a resource in their actions to date, partly for the primary sources included, but also due to the helpful analysis of the case law, and legislation included.
In Hawaiian Blood: Colonialism and the Politics of Sovereignty and Indigeneity (2008) by J. Kēhaulani Kauanui the focus becomes blood quantum and Kānaka identity.[91] While seemingly taking a conceptual approach in her methodology, Kauanuiʻs overall work is much broader than this.[92] She instead emphasizes three areas of investigation: settler-colonial motivations through Hawaiian studies and political activism perspectives; indigenous studies in general and US federal policies; and finally, through a Critical Race Theory framework. Therefore, while conceptual, it also tends to be interdisplinary in her methodological approaches, emphacizing heavily on the racialization of the Kānaka Maoli. Kauanui uses a broad range of both primary and secondary sources: legal and congressional documents from both Americaʻs and Hawaiʻi’s past, written works of the aliʻi (chiefs), news articles from both English language and Native newspapers, just to name a few of the sources, in this way her historiographical approach is not hegemonic and provides a more ʻlegal pluralistic’ understanding of the laws in question.[93] One other key note of interest, Kauanui is one of the few historians that does not reference either Kuykendall or Levy within her text.
In Asian Settler Colonialism (2008), which was edited by Fujikane and Okamura, and their various contributors all take a settler colonialism approach to their work.[94] They argue the culpability of the Japanese-settler in the colonial processes during the Territory and Statehood. While many of the contributors to the book do use a broad range of primary and secondary sources showing a somewhat interdisciplinary position; they also include a variety of viewpoints: Caucasian, Japanese and Kānaka Maoli. Yet, they equally voice their personal opinions, and heavily rely on the work of Haunani Kay Trask, Mililani Trask and Ka Lāhui (the sovereignty group that both sisters belonged to), thereby reflecting the principles and legal arguments of Ka Lāhui who, as an organization, were proponents of the “nation-within-a-nation” legal form of sovereignty for Native Hawaiians. This is pertinent to the analysis of their research in that it forms the framework to their arguments.
In Who Owns the Crown Lands of Hawaiʻi?, (2008) Jon M. Van Dyke argues that the “Native Hawaiians” still have a strong claim to the crown lands of Hawaii. [95]Van Dyke takes a legal-historical approach to his work. Aided by numerous law students and other legal scholars, Van Dyke delves into the legal documentation of the Kingdom, Republic, Territory and the State of Hawaii, both constitutional and legislative law, as well as the legal cases that bring into question “whose land is it?” However, he also attempts to tackle a socio-cultural understanding of the traditions, and concepts of the Kānaka Maoli, through the utilization of the academic work of cultural experts such as Kawena Pukui, Lilikala Kameʻeleihiwa, Samuel Kamakau and others. He also includes a number of primary source documents, such as letters, journals, and political notations from both aliʻi and westerners alike. Yet, he too relies heavily on the work of Daws, Kuykendal and Levy among other historians of the Territorial and early Statehood period, forming the same legalistic framework of the Great Māhele that has permeated the Eurocentric historiography of Hawaii. Although Van Dyke maintains a Western view of land ownership, he does reveal the territorial and state corruption in regards to the Public Land trusts of the Crown and Hawaiian Kingdom government lands that were forcibly conviscated by the Republic of Hawaii. [96]
In No Mākou Ka Mana, (2014) Kamanamaikalani Beamer takes a conceptual approach to the historical record of the Kingdom.[97] Beamer argues that the aliʻi, although adopting Western structures and technologies, created a distinctly Hawaiian nation-state. To prove this he focuses on three themes: how the aliʻi created a hybrid nation-state utilizing Western structural systems without losing their Indigenous identity, their resilience after the overthrow, and how, by understanding the past one can motivate the future of the sovereignty movement. In doing so, Beamer is one of the few that takes a linguistic approach, analyzing ʻolelo Hawaiʻi, to better understand Kānaka Maoli identity, their concepts, and how they are significant to the motivations of the aliʻi. By doing this, Beamer moves away from the Eurocentric interpretations and assumptions that too often argue that the aliʻi were either gullible or ignorant when adopting colonial frames of law. Beamer draws on a wide variety of resources, while demonstrating a broad spectrum of perspectives, such as instead of defining the colonization process of “civilization” it is defined pillage-ization,[98] or his analysis of the kumu kānāwai (source of laws) which provides a window into the reasons the aliʻi quickly adopted written laws: for diplomatic negotiations, semiautonomous regulations, and keeping foreign powers at bay, thereby providing a very different interpretation of Kingdom law.[99] He also utilizes moʻolelo (Kānaka Maoli stories of old), as well as the actual voices of the aliʻi through his written work, being an important avenue into the motivations and traditions of the Kānaka Maoli.
Final Historiographical Assessment
Many of the Hawaiiʻs secondary sources available contain flaws in regards to the historical record of land tenure and cultural understandings in Hawaii. Too often they portray the aliʻi as part of the reason for the overthrow or they minimize the culpability of the United States. The historiography of Hawaii, from 1893 to the 1970s, was largely a product of the Americanization and colonizing process of Hawaii, designed to frame a story that either colored the perpetrators of the “overthrow” as progressive participants in the civilizing process or that their actions were the inevitable conclusion to the ignorance and gullibility of the aliʻi. The hegemonic nature of this time periods historical record not only reflects the attempted erasure of the language, but also the cultural concepts that were at the foundation of the kumu kānāwai (Kingdom law). By doing this, legal scholars, attorneys, judges, and historians since have misinterpreted the assessments of Kingdom law and ignored the legal efforts taken by the oligarchy to dispossess Kānaka Maoli from their lands and resources. While Hawaiian historiography as moved steadily towards a stronger understanding of the cultural traditions with the increasing number of ʻōlelo Hawaii speakers, the influence of a century of re-writing history to benefit White dominance has taken a lasting toll on the legal interpretations of existing law. Each contains bias, whether influenced by the colonial control of historical records, or by their pro-Hawaiian rights views, yet, each text can add to the foundation of research. However, through the use of ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi documentation, and an analysis of Hawaiian conceptual thinking a re-framing of legal arguments can be achieved for the benefit of activists who are seeking ways to continue to fight for their inherent rights to the lands, resources, and culture. My project will be unique in that sourcing will take advantage of primary source ʻōlelo Hawaii archives, in order to better understand Kānaka Maoli concepts and motivations, while linking the racialization of Hawaii to that of the colonial conspiratorial project to Americanize the islands. In order to provide a resource for the unity among sovereign activists to share information and legal tactics, I will be expanding on the oral catalog of the motivating factors that awakened the Hawaiian Renaissance and Sovereignty movement. Only through embracing all of the archival sources Hawaii has to offer can we hope to understand the past in order to move towards an independent future.