Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 10, Number 3, 1 Malaki 1993 — Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation report [ARTICLE]

Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation report

The views and opinions expressed in this eolumn do not necessarily represent the official position of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs Board of Trustees

Correcting distortions of fact surrounding the Overthrow

by Mahealani Kamau'u, Executive Director and Alan T. Murakami, Esq. Litigation Director (This eolumn is revised from an article originally printed in the Honolulu Advertiser in response to an Advertiser editorial and an opinion pieee by Thurston TwiggSmith, former owner of the Advertiser.) The Honolulu Advertiser distorted the facts surrounding the overthrow of Hawaii's last queen in editorials that mirror an attitude that has apparently survived Lorrin Thurston's view of this world for the past 100 years. It is small irony that his grandson today spreads these misconceptions as the publisher of the paper Mr. Thurston purchased decades ago to affect public opinion on the issues of the day.

It saddens us to realize the depth of Mr. Twigg-Smith's misunderstanding, refusal to acknowledge history, and/or personal bias. Given his opinion and those like A.A. "Bud" Smyser of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, we are resolved to dispel published myths and misperceptions with facts and education about the true histoiy surrounding the events of 1893.' On Sovereign Sunday, the Advertiser's lead editorial unfortunately mischaracterized the scope and nature of proposals being floated by sovereignty advocates. Some of these statements were based on a misunderstanding of history and land tenure in Hawai'i.

First, the editors contend that the "legality of any revolution depends on whieh side you were on," suggesting that the overthrow of the Queen could somehow be justified as an attempt to secure relief from an oppressive monarch. One of their examples is the American Revolution and how it brought new rights to the people. It is an incredible simplicity to compare the American revolution with what happened in 1893 in Hawai'i. The editors should set an example and examine the impact of that "legal" revolution on native Americans in making such judgments.

This is the core reason the editors' analogy failed. It ignored the fact that the Overthrow by white western businessmen and missionaries, aided by the guns and cannons of American troops, was directed against a sovereign indigenous government, not the king of England, as the American Revolution was in 1776. The American revolutionaries were attempting to throw off the yoke of colonialism imposed by King George; the annexationists in

Hawai'i were attempting to impose the very colonialism (without a plebiscite) that this country disavowed to establish its own existence. Moreover, the U.S. had diplomatic relations with the Hawaiian Kingdom at the time, and had executed several treaties, among them a friendship treaty respecting the sovereign right of the Kingdom to exist. Could the U.S. simply ignore that treaty just to satisfy the hunger of the annexationists for political power to stabilize the business environment they feared was threatened by the Queen's plans to establish a new constitution? Furthermore, the editorial suggested that the counter-revolution did not succeed because it did not receive "popular support and got nowhere." The suggestion that the Overthrow was just part of a historical pattern of the time to fell monarchs all over the world smacks of apologetic hindsight. The point is that the Overthrow was nonconsensual and controlled by an oligarchy far removed from any eloak of democracy.

History texts are replete with exhortations by the Queen to refrain from violence, in the hope that the U.S. would repair the damage done to the Hawaiian sovereign. She may have been naive; but the laek of a counterrevolution merely reflects the pacifist nature of the Hawaiians who were responding to their queen. It was because of the restraint urged by the Queen herself that there was no armed violenee directed against these usurpers. The Queen was unaware of the plans for the ultimately unsuccessful counter-revolution, even though she was placed under house arrest for it. It was no indication of support for the oligarchy that survived until the annexation. The Advertiser editors find justification in the paternalistic politics of businessmen bent on protecting their own eeonomie interests, rather than the interests of the native Hawaiians at the time. At the same time, the Advertiser editors, sounding mueh like the Lonin Thurstons of that time, justify this reduction of the power of the Hawaiian monarch because of the "excesses of the regime and disregard for the welfare of the eommon people." The editors maintain that the business and community leaders acted to make sure Hawai'i remained viable eeonomically and became a plaee where all citizens were secure and had a voice in their own . These were the westerners with American citizenship who were aware of the "benefits of democracy as opposed to absolute monarchies." The editors elaim that the subsequent provisional govemment through statehood led

to freedoms unknown under the monarchy. This apologetic view of history is unfounded and steeped in racist overtones. It smacks of the imperialistic attitudes whieh in fact led to the overthrow — justification of change based on the need to secure a vision of political and eeonomie viability structured around a westem view of correctness. The broadening of personal freedoms to whieh the Advertiser alludes had disparate effects in the past 100 years. One group that least benefitted from the political transformations of the period was the native Hawaiians. If there was any lesson from the policies of manifest destiny and imperialism of the 19th century, it was that they ean spell genocide and exploitation in the hands of a majority culture bent on imposing their will and vision on all cultures in the name of democracy. The loss of sovereignty meant a loss of the prerogatives to govem those lands onee under the control of the Kingdom.

The editors are mistaken in stating that the lands assumed by the provisional govemment were the Crown lands set aside for the benefit of the govemment. They argue against a retum of these lands, since they believe they were originally set aside for all people in Hawai'i. Their misstatement of Hawaiian history leads to an erroneous conclusion. King Kamehameha originally created the government lands by setting aside 1 .5 million acres for that purpose, while reserving almost 1 million acres for the personal use of the monarchy. This reservation eventually became known as the Crown lands, and was not initially for the use of the government. After the provisional government and the Republic of Hawai'i illegally took over the lands of the former kingdom, the government and crown lands were consolidated. Some were sold to private parties. Henee, Hawaiians have a distinct basis for return of the Crown lands. They also have a

basis for return of the government lands, since no subsequent government paid for any of it. If we are to live by due process under our own constitution, shouldn't our govemment pay for the acquisition of property?

Actually, the annexationists were only supportive of revolution because it served their eeonomie interests, and because they were threatened by the prospect of being at the political mercy of a non-white, non-male political leader who clearly saw the hypocrisy of the 1887 Bayonet Constitution imposed against the will of King Kalākaua. Contrary to the Advertiser's contention, this Bayonet Constitution eollapsed democracy, rather than expanded it. Suggestions that the monarchy was in a period of reform when King Kalākaua accepted a new constitution extending the vote to Portuguese and newly-arrived Americans and Europeans are untme. The same Bayonet Constitution limited suffrage to Hawaiians over 47 years of age who paid property taxes. Obviously, very few, if any, such Hawaiians qualified. The Queen's memoirs reflect that the electorate shrank from over 13,500 to less than 4,000 as a result of this change. Furthermore, it pointedly omitted mueh larger populations of Asian immigrants who could not vote at all. None of these changes was approved by the vast majority of the resident population of Hawai'i, whieh was over 100,000 at the time. Is this the idea of democracy with whieh the oligarchy had hoped to reform the Kingdom?

In response to the onerous burdens imposed by this constitution, over 9,500 out of 13,500 voters in 1 892 petitioned the new Queen to replace it. Her memoirs recite the overwhelming opinion against the constitution imposed on King Kalākaua by Mr. Thurston Twigg-Smith's grandfather and his cronies. It should be noted that these individuals eommitted the same treasonous act of whieh they accused the Queen,

replacing an existing constitution with one of their own making. Any excesses that may have occurred during the reign of the various kings of Hawai'i are really irrelevant unless they spurred popular opposition. But was it the business or prerogative of a tiny majority of economically powerful businesmen and merchants to overthrow a sovereign government in conspiracy with the U.S. Minister for Hawai'i? Can these acts be justified on some racist notion that only the white elite of Hawai'i at the time knew better what was good for the people? Can they be justified to then set up a renegade government without a popular plebiscite and by stripping two-thirds of the existing electorate of their suffrage rights so they could control the replacement govemment? No wonder the sitting president of the United States condemned the Overthrow and urged Congress to reject any treaties of annexation because of this injustice.

Mr. Twigg-Smith should do the same, even if it means refuting his grandfather's actions. His article was filled with the same misconceptions and distortions that permeated another editorial whieh appeared one week earlier. Neveitheless, his personal bias is evident in the analysis he offers for opposing the need for any apology for the Overthrow. We fear that insurrections to overthrow governments not friendly to American conceptions of white democracy will eonhnue so long as Mr. Twigg-Smith's type of mentality persists and prevails in the halls of our govemment. The only solution to this dilemma is education and understanding that goes beyond jingoistic notions of what is best for democracy. Hui Na'auao is dedicated to that education and understanding and will continue to oppose the notions of Mr. Twigg-Smith. Consider the source and the relationship he bears in weighing your own opinion on these critieal issues.

Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation Board of Directors' Meeting Schedule All interested individuals are invited to attend NHLC board meetngs. Meetings are held at 12 noon in NHLC's offices at 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1205, Honolulu, Hawai'i . Phone 521-2302. March 25, 1993 April 22, 1993 May 27, 1993 June 24, 1993 July 22, 1993