| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Peter Medeiros
`Olu`olu
546 Posts |
 Posted - 08/25/2008 : 11:10:42 AM
|
| Imua! |
 |
|
|
Retro
Ahonui
USA
2368 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2008 : 11:43:30 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by braddah jay
some don't want to open up a can of worms.
Worms do not belong in cans. |
|
|
|
wcerto
Ahonui
USA
5052 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2008 : 1:50:58 PM
|
I have a couple of questions.
1. What about Gavan Daws' "Shoal of Time"? I read that based on a recommendation from Wayne Chang. Is it too colored by a foreign point of view? Is it accurate?
2. Does anyone have comments pro or con regarding Kau Inoa? http://www.kauinoa.org/ |
Me ke aloha
Malama pono,
Wanda |
Edited by - wcerto on 08/25/2008 1:53:23 PM |
|
|
|
Retro
Ahonui
USA
2368 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2008 : 2:34:58 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wcerto
2. Does anyone have comments pro or con regarding Kau Inoa? http://www.kauinoa.org/
Uh-oh...think I'll leave the room for a while. Gonna be plenny worms here soon...
Honestly, Wanda - I've heard so many convincing arguments from many sides, as to the value of Kau Inoa, similar to all the discussions about the Akaka Bill. For some, it works; for others, it stinks. For some, it doesn't go far enough; for others, it's a bad step.
There are so many sides to an issue of this magnitude that there is no single solution that will satisfy a majority. |
|
|
|
noeau
Ha`aha`a
USA
1105 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2008 : 9:48:26 PM
|
I read it too. It is a good place to start. Like I said all the history books are good just put the perspective of view point on what is being read. Consider the author. What is the motive and where does the writer get his or her ideas. Look at the bibliography and read all the sources listed. It could be a life time endeavor. Daws is incomplete. You must consider primary source versus secondary and tertiary. If one is writing from first hand knowledge or are they formulating ideas from other sources. Approach the reading from the idea of what is to be gained from it. Sheesh now I sound like one teacher. But if you apply what I just wrote you will answer your own questions Wanda.
For me Kau Inoa is irrelevant. I no can prove I Hawaiian by some kinda pepa or palapala. My mom was my dads girlfriend and he was married to someone else. So his name is not even on my birth certificate. But I know I am Hawaiian because my dad told me I was. For me Kau Inoa no mean one cow pie.
I donʻt have a belt to prove my lineage but I do know who my father is because my mother said who he was. And guess what, I am already a sovereign Hawaiian. Just because get one different gvʻt in Hawaiʻi that never ever took away my koko Hawaiʻi. I am free and Hawaian. I just donʻt like the idea of jail so I avoid violating the status quo for now. |
No'eau, eia au he mea pa'ani wale nō. |
Edited by - noeau on 08/25/2008 9:57:43 PM |
|
|
|
Baritone
Lokahi
USA
136 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2008 : 04:40:43 AM
|
Thank you, Al. I wuz goin pound da udda guys fo lolo inputs. All from da head. Wen you born dea wartime and remember the soldier with his rifle walking da street yellout to me fo "close the shade (he nevah know I only wanted to wave thanks to him fo da Spam and chocolate and cigarettes fo my mada's lungs), and have to take food to the Tsunami and lava-flow victims, and live in plantation camp house, and no can talk olelo maoli or Kepani or "da kine" coz da telephone monitor no understand, and go see da destruction of our traditions under non-Hawaiian rule, and missionaries wen convince da Alii "thou shalt not kill" so dispose of cannon/firearms/kapu's and that da kapu system not right but eastcoast interpretation of Christianity is da way fo go so we no can shoot the invaders, and hea about that terrific farmer YPOCHRIS who "farmed" the sacred aina of Waipio Valley bad mouth us Hawaiians fo being "passive". All dat kine stuffs from the Hawaiian wannabe's....... Even now, I..... Aaaaaaaaaaaa ia! (Cleansing breath) Pau!
Imua! Make peace!
Herb |
Edited by - Baritone on 08/27/2008 04:49:08 AM |
|
|
|
ypochris
Lokahi
USA
398 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2008 : 06:05:18 AM
|
Baritone,
I certainly didn't intend to "bad mouth" Hawaiians- I simply (coming, as I said, from races that resisted the same influences to the death) don't understand the passivity that allowed the nation to be taken away so easily. Perhaps the end result would have been the same (it certainly was for my people!) but I wonder if being so remote, and also important to a number of nation's strategic concerns, Hawai'i might have suffered a different fate if there had been a strong resistance. That is all.
Also, I don't consider myself a "wanna-be Hawaiian"- I am quite proud of and happy to be exactly who I am. As we all should be. Nor, after 30 years of working the lo'i, first for others and then for myself, opening up four acres of lo'i by hand and farming them using essentially traditional methods, with o'o in hand and no poisons, do I understand why you write "farmed" in quotes.
Yes, Waipi'o is sacred, and I have recognized and respected that in every way. Most of my energy over many years has been devoted to protecting the valley, fighting to recover the sacred wai from the plantations, and attempting to provide an opportunity for Hawaiians and others alike to discover and recover Hawaiian culture. Not because I am a "wanna-be Hawaiian" but because that is what is pono in the place where I lived. And because that is what I was taught from the time I was fourteen by my hanai father, Johnson "Waimanu Jack" Kaholoa'a, who lived the most traditional life of anyone on the north end of the island in his time.
My point is that what I write is from a deep love and respect for Hawai'i and it's people, and never would I bad mouth them or put them down in any way. I simply wonder why they responded as they did, coming from a very different background where the response was very different.
My apologies if I offended anyone.
Chris
|
|
|
|
wcerto
Ahonui
USA
5052 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2008 : 08:58:42 AM
|
Eh Herb - Chris has koko of First Peoples, but heart of nothing but aloha for Hawai`i. Me, being an outsider/haole, I too wondered why such "passivity". The more I researched and read, the more I came to understand that was the only course of action that the Queen could have taken to save her people. A wise ruler is not always a fighting, agressive ruler. Look Saddam Hussein - very aggressive, but wise -- hmmmm, ah don't tink so. She was being pono, she only knew how to be pono, and expected to be treated pono in return, by the opposition in Hawai`i, as well as in the U.S. political circles. Ugly truth is that the politicians and business people involved had/have no concept of pono.
See what I found on da google.
http://starbulletin.com/2004/03/18/news/story2.html |
Me ke aloha
Malama pono,
Wanda |
|
|
|
noeau
Ha`aha`a
USA
1105 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2008 : 11:30:17 AM
|
Cool story about the stream and Chris too. About fighting back some did try that but it never came about as it should have. Read about Robert Wilcox and youʻll see what what I mean. I donʻt know if Hawaiʻi knew about the Maori experience but they fought and never really lost but England still got New Zealand anyway. So sometimes violent resistance is not a solution. The super powers of the day carved up the world for their own purpose. They would just take and take and take. Is it any different today? Powerful nations mess with weak ones all the time it is not right but it goes on anyway.
Cattle barons in the wild west, Hearst ripping off gold mines from other hard working people and greedy sugar planters in Hawaiʻi all come from the same rotten mold. Today it is the oil industry nothing new just the actors change out. |
No'eau, eia au he mea pa'ani wale nō. |
Edited by - noeau on 08/27/2008 11:36:20 AM |
|
|
|
slipry1
Ha`aha`a
USA
1511 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2008 : 12:24:07 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by noeau
Cool story about the stream and Chris too. About fighting back some did try that but it never came about as it should have. Read about Robert Wilcox and youʻll see what what I mean. I donʻt know if Hawaiʻi knew about the Maori experience but they fought and never really lost but England still got New Zealand anyway. So sometimes violent resistance is not a solution. The super powers of the day carved up the world for their own purpose. They would just take and take and take. Is it any different today? Powerful nations mess with weak ones all the time it is not right but it goes on anyway.
Cattle barons in the wild west, Hearst ripping off gold mines from other hard working people and greedy sugar planters in Hawaiʻi all come from the same rotten mold. Today it is the oil industry nothing new just the actors change out.
The most dnagerous place to be is between a capitalist and the source of a lot of money - they'll do ANYTHING to get it - lie, cheat, steal and kill! |
keaka |
|
|
|
marzullo
`Olu`olu
USA
923 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2008 : 4:43:54 PM
|
I don't have any great insight into this history, except the general observation that it is astonishingly hard to understand the emotional environment of historical events. And, I'm not of Hawaiian ancestry (I'm a mixture of Northern Europe, Southern Europe, and Africa - which is not especially useful since culture is learned, not inherited).
But, when talking about Hawaiian Sovereignty a few years ago with a kupuna, he told me that he was saddened by the pressure the federal government was putting for a blood fraction rule. He felt that it would destroy one key aspect of the Hawaiian culture.
aloha,
Keith
|
Edited by - marzullo on 08/27/2008 4:44:26 PM |
|
|
|
thumbstruck
Ahonui
USA
2168 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2008 : 7:25:32 PM
|
Joseph Heller said, "The weak are at the mercy of those in power."
Solomon said that man dominates man to his own injury (both the dominator and the dominated are damaged).
Most humans have lived "in the squalid village below while high above, the rich and powerful fight their petty battles".
Humans are up against 1) ignorance, 2) ineptitude, and 3) selfishness. The struggle is an individual one, since it is impossible to raise a group to consciousness (there's always someone in the group that can't pay attention or grasp the concept or really doesn't care). History repeats itself with each human.
|
|
|
|
wcerto
Ahonui
USA
5052 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 11:58:19 AM
|
Gen.Pachi brings up some mighty good points. Glenn, did you get drafted or anythiing lidat? You was too young for Viet Nam era draft, yeah. I think you probably missed it by the hair on your chinny-chin-chin. Or join ROTC? How you know all that fighting and war stuff and strategy lidat. Answering the questions that Glenn asks demonstrates that the action by the Queen was the only logical course of action. And hindsight is way mo bettah dan 20/20.
|
Me ke aloha
Malama pono,
Wanda |
|
|
|
ypochris
Lokahi
USA
398 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 2:03:44 PM
|
Menpachi,
Not sure I want to go on with this, as it is such a sensitive subject, but while I see your points I will play devil's advocate a little longer...
"1) The population was decimated by disease. So how much of the population was left? 20%? Was there an army of sufficient numbers? Or did disease wipe them out. Remember that disease wiped out the indigenous Central American population enough to eliminate resistance to the Europeans."
Far from being wiped out, resistance continues in Central America to this day, particularly in Guatamala where a genocidal campaign to wipe out indigenous people has been waged unsuccuessfully for years and battles are still fought nearly every day. Central and Eastern Guatamala is only nominally under the control of the European government. Helicopter gunships against persistance. Mexico too is primarily Native American, and many areas still beyond government control. Southern Honduras, northeastern Nicaragua, south central Costa Rica, northern Panama, southern Panama- many areas of Central America are controlled to this day by the indigenous population.
"Smallpox blankets wiped out a substantial number of Native Americans."
Didn't stop us from resisting for hundreds of years- resistance my people continue to this day (remember Ruby Ridge?)
"A small force is almost always annihilated or captured by a larger force. Do you understand this?"
All so true, but the invaders in this case numbered about 100 even assuming the U.S. forces would actually have participated, which is questionable as it would have been a direct violation of their orders. So your argument implies that the Hawaiians almost certainly could have annihilated the invaders.
"2) Was there a strong leader (general) to organize such warfare?"
My point exactly!
"Many of the leaders utilized the western technology to their advantage." Such as Kamehameha I.
"Were the leaders themselves strongly opposed to the demise of the culture? Could they see it and oppose it?"
Not after Boki and Kalakaua.
"Could they oppose those who assisted them in their personal quest."
For clothes and Western acclamation?
"Did they mobilize their people to oppose the demise of the culture? Even if they did, then what strategy could they have used to wage war against it? Was it realistic?"
This, of course, is the big question...
"4) Waging war requires a sufficient army with weapons of equal or superior technology to vanquish the oponents. Did they have this?"
Let me entertain you with a story. My good friend was an epidemiologist with the U.S. Public health service. He was sent to Brazil to eliminate the few remaining pockets of wild smallpox and prevent his fellow WHO team members from obtaining the disease for their germ laboratories (he failed at this, but that is a different story).
He had heard that Brazillian government troops were engaged in a campaign of genocide against the native population, and one day a large convoy of trucks came out of the jungle, rumored to be loaded with bodies. In the middle of the night, he snuck down with his camera to document the slaughter of the indigenous people, and lifted the canvas on the side of his truck. Much to his surprise, the trucks proved to be full of dead Brazillian solders.
Turns out, the indigenous people were masters of camoflauge, climbing, and jungle hunting. They would climb high in a tree, wait for a column of troops to pass, then pick them off from behind with utterly silent blowguns using darts with frog poisons that dropped the hindmost solder without a sound. Even if solders further up the line became aware their fellows were dying behind them, they had no idea where to point their guns as the people hidden in the trees were essentially invisible and soundless.
Thus small native tribes took on an entire army, and won. The majority of the Amazon basin in Brazil, Venezuela, Ecuador, etc. is still under the control of the indigenous people today, although the governments have chosen to allow the poor of their countries to continue the assault at no cost to themselves.
I would also note that in Viet Nam an ill equipped, small force kicked the butt of the largest army in the world, and Afghanistan has fought off the Turkish empire, the British empire, the Soviet Union, and soon the United States with few people and obsolete weapons. Indominatible will, local knowledge, and stealth can defeat even the largest and best equipped army- and soon you aquire, from the enemy you defeat, the exact weapons they are trying to use against you.
"This would require a dominant economic power and social movement. Was there an economic power and wherewithal to acquire such weapons?"
Hawai'i was capable of aquiring Western weapons, and had done so in the past. But most government revenues were being used to aquire what we would call "consumer luxuries" instead.
" Was there a unified social resistance by all of the people? Were the people unified in their anger at their situation and was it aligned with the "Generals"?"
I think the people of Hawai'i followed the lead of the Ali'i. No resistance from the Ali'i equated to no resistance from the people.
"5) If your army is small then you need to acquire allies to support your cause. Who would have been their allies? What was the risk of double-cross?"
Many nations had signed a treaty of friendship with Hawai'i, and many were not eager to see the United States get such a prize. I think, given time, the United States would have returned to see a coalition of warships instead of an undefended country. This is assuming the United States would have returned at all- their policy was against it, international law was against it, their allies were against it, and the only justification was that it was an internal revolution that the United States had played no part in.
Of course many of these nations would have liked Hawai'i for themselves, but the same forces that discouraged them in the past would have discouraged them in the future.
"6) The general's subordinates must be completely aligned with the general, and highly trained in this art of war against a specific enemy. Were they?"
The number of the invaders were so small- less than a hundred- that sheer numbers would have overwhelmed them.
"7) All war entails sacrifice. What do think would have been the losses? Commiting suicide is not an effective way of waging war. Could there have been a stragegy to win? How disastrous would the attempted seige have been given the situation of that time?"
It is difficult to quantify this, but the initial struggle would certainly have been won- perhaps with the loss of a queen and some hundreds of men. What the response of the United States would have been is hard to judge, but gaging by their initial reaction and official position on the matter, it is more likely than not that they would not have gotten further involved.
"8) Where was the field of battle to be engaged? Was there one?"
Iolani Palace. Killing the queen would have been a strategic mistake; it seems unlikely that the planters would have. But far greater sacrifices have been made in the cause of freedom.
"9) By the time the reliazation that the people realized that something negative had happened, was it too late?"
She called off the palace guard, they alone might have been sufficient. But this is a question that is impossible to answer, except to say that trying to do something (in my eyes) is better than just giving in because you assume it is futile. Time and time again the "hopeless" effort has emerged triumphant.
"10) The situation of the Hawaiians' and American Indians' interactions with Europeans was vastly different. There were also similarities. Can you expound on this?"
Books could be written on this, but I will briefly touch a few points. I think the primary difference is that Hawaiians were respected by the Europeans, primarily because of their highly developed class systems which echoed the European ideal of advanced "culture". No deliberate attempt was made to wipe out the Hawaiian people- although of course the culture was under assault from the moment the missionaries arrived, as much as it was appreciated by earlier visitors.
By contrast, Native Americans were viewed as "savages", and public opinion was that "the only good Indian is a dead Indian". Deliberate genocide was the program, and when Native Americans began to obtain weapons from defeated Europeans, greedy traders, and government encouraging them to wipe out other tribes, simply gunning them down became difficult and deliberately introduced disease became the weapon of choice. Eventually when they became weak enough they were rounded up and driven long distances from their homelands, to sever their connections with the land and their traditions, and forced into entirely new lifestyles in a new place. Their children were taken away to be "educated" and generally were never seen again.(Unbelievably, this genocide continued as late as the early 1980's, when the Hopi [one of the few tribes to retain their culture] discovered that any woman who had undergone surgery in a Bureau of Indian Affairs hospital had been sterilized while she was unconcious!)
Hawaiians at least were allowed to remain on their ancestral lands, and to keep their children. What was similar was the deculturalization- forbidden to speak the native language in school, wear traditional dress, celebrate traditional holidays. One stark difference is that it was the Ali'i who forced western mores on the people, while Native American leaders were those who fought the invasion to their last breath. Perhaps this is the difference between leaders who inherit their position based on family, and leaders who become leaders solely by leading- which is to say directing the will of the people towards working together for what they want, not telling them what to do. A Native American leader was only the leader if everyone agreed with him- no one was forced to follow. No kapu, no death penalty- if you didn't like the way your band was going, you just joined a more compatable band or struck out on your own.
11) So, was it really passive?
From where I stand, it appears that way. And since I've already stuck my foot in it, I'll add that far too many Hawaiians still give in to what they see as "authority", doing as they are told. What is up with Hawaiian Homes lands, for example? Still not in Hawaiian families' hands after 100 years, and you just take it? Plantations stealing all the water to your lo'i, when you and not they have the legal right to it? Man, I could go on and on. If you would all just support the few who are fighting for what is right (with no self interest), you would be amazed at how fast "the man", "those in power", "the authority", "greedy capitalists", or whatever you want to call them crumbled in front of you and ran to get out of your way.
Again, and as always, with the deepest love for Hawai'i and it's people. I am trying to spark an idea here, a resistance, a resoration- not put anyone down.
Chris
|
|
|
|
braddah jay
Lokahi
235 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2008 : 2:55:03 PM
|
Has anybody read the book "OVERTHROW" by Stephen Kinzer? Starts with the overthrow of Hawaii and ends with Iraq,basically how and why the US was responsible.After reading this book,I was left with the feeling that the american people are basically good people.But it is the ones that are in high power that inflict the damage.The use of media hype can be a most effective tool.It seems when the american people are behind the government by being falsely informed,those in high power can do pretty much anything.And this is a government that was based on christian principles,in fact this country used that as a reason to supposedly help a country,by being directly involved in it's overthrow.If this book is legit in it's facts,then we can see how we the people are constantly being fooled,starting in 1893 until the present.The section of hawaii's overthrow was most interesting,of how events fell in place,you feel as if maybe this or that was different, the outcome might have been in hawaii's favor.Anyway let me know if this book is the real deal.Aloha braddah jay P.S This is the book I've been meaning to send you Wanda.It's on the way.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
