Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, this is actually one of the big misconceptions of the sovereignty movement, as far as I'm concerned. The commoners and Chiefs didn't own land under the traditional Hawaiian system, and even later, nobody lost any owned property in the 1893 overthrow or subsequent annexation.
The King owned the land, within our current understanding of the concept of ownership, because he had sole authority to sell off chunks of it to foreign investors... which they did as they pleased. And that and taxation built the great wealth that royalty enjoyed. One example being the Bishop Estate, worth $10 Billion, which is still one of the largest landowners in Hawai'i, created at the bequest of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, the great-granddaughter of King Kamehameha the Great (Kam I). Seems to me the whole principle of wealth inequality was invented by the royalty system.
Commoners, on the other hand, were allowed to live on the land, not own it, at the direction and discretion of the Chiefs, and they could be made to move if they did something to upset the Chief... or if the Chief did something to upset the King.
Taxation on the commoners was horrendous. Not only did they owe three days of free labor a month to working for the royalty, such as building fish ponds and temples, but if they grew food on the land, such as kalo (taro), they only got to keep 1/3 of the harvest for themselves; and if they tended the royal fish ponds, they could not eat the fish. The chiefs took a big cut off the top of all the taxes, and the rest went to the King.
I can see why someone would want to restore that system if they were a descendant of Hawaiian royalty and thought they had some claim on the riches to be made in the current day. Even a descendant of the "Nobility," the Chiefs of the day might hope to get their fingers in the pie if only the pre-1893 government was to be restored. But just regular ol' kanaka maoli folks? What do they stand to gain personally from restoring the monarchy? Nothing that I can see, because they have no personal claim on anything.
PS, in the current headlines, now that King Carlos of Spain has announced his abdication from the throne, thousands of demonstrators are marching the streets in Spain, demanding the monarchy be abolished and the country be run from now on as a democracy. You know... the system the US uses... because it is the fairest way to govern a nation.
The "Bayonet Constitution" of 1887 effectively stripped the Hawaiian monarchy of any real power. So in effect, Kalākaua was a "figurehead," much like the current queen of England and the emperor of Japan. Unfortunately, Liliʻuokalani wasn't content with being a mere "figurehead." Moreover, some Hawaiians would've preferred to see a true "Republic of Hawaiʻi," instead of the "American annexationist," "sham government" that was created after the overthrow of Liliʻuokalani.
ARTICLE 1. God hath endowed all men with certain inalienable rights; among which are life, liberty, and the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
ARTICLE 2. All men are free to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences; but this sacred privilege hereby secured, shall not be so construed as to justify acts of licentiousness, or practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the Kingdom.
ARTICLE 3. All men may freely speak, write, and publish their sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right, and no law shall be enacted to restrain the liberty of speech, or of the press, except such laws as may be necessary for the protection of His Majesty the King
What I find really striking is that this, and later versions, reads like something a Christian Missionary from Boston would draft... as it was... so I think that to get back to the REAL Hawai'i that the agitators claim to want, it's important to restore the government that preceded the first taint of European and American "corruption." Let's get back to stone-age feudalism circa 1800! Yeah, that will really stick it to "The Man!"
Not really. The Great Mahele put 1/3 of the land in the King's personal possession, and 1/3 in the Chiefs' personal possession, and effectively... what?... after a few didoes only about 1% wound up in the Commoners' hands? The rest all flowed back into what is now called State Lands.
Quote:
The "Bayonet Constitution" of 1887 effectively stripped the Hawaiian monarchy of any real power. So in effect, Kalākaua was a "figurehead," much like the current queen of England and the emperor of Japan. Unfortunately, Liliʻuokalani wasn't content with being a mere "figurehead." Moreover, some Hawaiians would've preferred to see a true "Republic of Hawaiʻi," instead of the "American annexationist," "sham government" that was created after the overthrow of Liliʻuokalani.
I dunno. maybe there are some who want to see a true Republic arise out of the post-Apocalyptic era in Hawai'i, but they sure are being quiet about it. Mostly I see and read about the "Restore the Monarchy" folks, who all seem to be driven by fairly obvious personal agendas, and I see the "Hawaiian Defense League" bumper stickers with the snappy crossed-rifle design over a stoner graphic on the back of oversized pickup trucks and SUVs with the extra big wheels and the 90% window tints and Jawaiian music or thug rap thumping out of open windows.
Oversized is an appropriate word to apply, in my estimation, to the unrealistic and entirely romantic fantasy which a handful of people ascribe to, that somehow the US Government will just cut Hawai'i loose to do whatever it wants, because, you know, there's International Law and stuff.
ARTICLE 1. God hath endowed all men with certain inalienable rights; among which are life, liberty, and the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
ARTICLE 2. All men are free to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences; but this sacred privilege hereby secured, shall not be so construed as to justify acts of licentiousness, or practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the Kingdom.
ARTICLE 3. All men may freely speak, write, and publish their sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right, and no law shall be enacted to restrain the liberty of speech, or of the press, except such laws as may be necessary for the protection of His Majesty the King
etc etc.
Sadly, there's a lot of disinformation that some Hawaiian sovereignty activists put on the internet to garner sympathy. The website that you linked to was set up by David Keanu Sai, who fancied himself as an "Acting Interior Minister" for the "Kingdom of Hawaiʻi." Sai's somewhat notorious for the "Perfect Title scam" in which he claimed that all land titles in Hawaiʻi are "worthless" because of the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. As an "acting representative" of the "Hawaiian monarchy," Sai offered to do a title search, along with issuing and recording a "warranty deed" for $1,500 to $2,000. Unfortunately, Sai's "title searches" and "warranty deeds" proved to be more "worthless." Although Sai was convicted and sentenced for his "little scheme," he only got five years probation and a $200 fine. The bulk of the $600,000 to $800,000 that Sai got from his 400 or so hapless victims (who were primarily Native Hawaiian) remains unaccounted for. Although Sai has cleaned up his act a little since getting his Ph.D. from the University of Hawaiʻi, he's a "convicted felon" that has a tendency to "put the cart before the horse" and ends up harming the cause of Hawaiian sovereignty more than helping it.
Sai's website fails to mention the earlier Kingdom of Hawaiʻi constitutions of 1840 and 1852. Here's a link to an article that provides a brief overview of the various constitutions and constitutional conventions of Hawaiʻi... http://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.ed...pdf?sequence=2
the "Bayonet Constitution." The king, according to his sister Liliuokalani, signed the constitution "under absolute compulsion."
The new constitution gave Europeans and Americans full voting rights without need of Hawaiian citizenship. It restricted* voting to those who made at least $600 annually (a substantial sum in the 1880s) or those who owned at least $3,000 worth of property. The new constitution in effect deprived native Hawaiians and immigrant Asians from voting. Only those persons selected by the whites would be able to serve in Hawaii's influential House of Nobles. This was just before annexation of Hawaii. We need to look at who constructted the bayonet constitution? It was rich american industries owners. The first govenor of the new annexed Hawai'ian territories was Sanford B. Dole one of the members of the group who wrote the bayonet constitution. So in essence today we are supporting these misdeeds.
Further, i don't necessary agree that a monarchy system is the best system of government, but looking at what the rich american industrial owners were purposeing with the Bayonet Constitution, monarchy couldn't be any worse.
Therefore: What does style of government have to do with the fact that absent of a monarch or vote who/that represented "the people of the hawaiian kingdom or the kanaka moali" There was none. Odd for a belief in Democracy? Lets end this and do whats right, give kanaka moali kingdom decendents the right to vote there self determination. If the vote is in favor of remaining a part of the Unitted States then the issue is done.
No argument, Sadly there are alot disreputable people out there who will take advantage of the weak and guilible people and i agree its not right. But in my book denying people there human rights, civil rights or not doing whats right because of fear of losing property is just as bad.
Only those persons selected by the whites would be able to serve in Hawaii's influential House of Nobles. This was just before annexation of Hawaii. We need to look at who constructted the bayonet constitution? It was rich american industries owners. The first govenor of the new annexed Hawai'ian territories was Sanford B. Dole one of the members of the group who wrote the bayonet constitution. So in essence today we are supporting these misdeeds.
Continued next post
You do know that Sanford Dole was not a rich American industry owner don't you? If so, why do you imply he was? Sanford Dole was born in Hawaii and lived the majority of his life in Hawaii. He was a lawyer. His father was a missionary and principal of Punahou School.
Born and raised in Hawaii and not a "rich American industry owner". He was every bit as Hawaiian in my opinion as anyone else living there at the time.
@OpenD
Lets end this and do whats right, give kanaka moali kingdom decendents the right to vote there self determination. If the vote is in favor of remaining a part of the Unitted States then the issue is done.
Did Kam 1 give the kanaka moali a vote when he forcibly imposed himself and his government upon the people of Hawaii ? No. And yet you seem to ignore the fact that Kam 1 did not allow the people to vote for their own "self determination" while demanding it from the US. Isn't that a double standard ?
Also: If a small group of people came to King Kalakaua and said that 80 years ago Kam 1 overthrew the leader of their island and imposed himself over them as ruler without allowing them any vote of self determination and it was illegal. And they Tell Kalakaua that they want him to give them back their island.
What do you think he would have said to them? Would he have said "Oh yes, that was a mistake. Let me draw up some papers and give you back the Island of Oahu" ? Of course not. He would not have given them anything.
And yet you somehow expect you seem to demand something from the Caucasians and the US Government that you don't hold the Monarchy to the same judgements. Isn't this another double standard ?
When I think about this further - it doesn't matter if OpenD writes 50 more paragraphs on the subject. He wasn't there. I wasn't there. Jonah wasn't there. There was no television camera to capture this unfold. Everybody is dead from that era - every single one of them. It doesn't matter what happened then. What matters is the here and now.
The bigger shame is some people can't move on from the past and continue to waste time and money on a subject that has been decided - and nothing will change that. Nothing. It makes for a history lesson - that's all. Living in the past doesn't do any good.
Not being able to accept the present is very destructive.
Last edited by whtviper1; 06-04-2014 at 11:37 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
