The Kingdom of Hawaii (1810-1893) was what Hawaii was before it fell under American rule.
Native Hawaiians are Polynesians. They arrived in the Hawaiian islands in the time of the Roman Empire, probably from the Marquesas Islands. They knew how to sail across the ocean by the stars – long before Europeans did. They brought bananas, chickens, pigs, dogs, coconuts, taro and breadfruit. The islands already had goats and boars. Another wave of Polynesians came from Tahiti in the 1200s.
One day a man and a woman washed up on their shores from a shipwreck. They had pale skin and red hair.
In 1778 the British explorer Captain Cook arrived. He and the whites who came after him brought guns, liquor, metal, the profit motive – and disease. Due to disease, Native Hawaiians went from being at least 300,000 strong in Cook’s time down to just 50,000 a hundred years later.
From 1790 to 1810, Kamehameha I, using British-made ships and guns, brought all the Hawaiian islands under his rule. Thus was born the Kingdom of Hawaii.
For the next 83 years Hawaii was ruled by its own kings and queens. But over time White Americans gained more and more power. First came the missionaries, who set up schools (one of them became Barack Obama’s high school), teaching Hawaiians to read, cover their breasts and become Christians. Then came the drunken whalers, who used Hawaii to supply their ships. And then, worst of all, came the sugar growers.
Sugar growers required a huge workforce. Starting in the 1850s they brought in Chinese coolies. Starting in the 1880s they mostly brought in Japanese workers. Asians soon outnumbered Natives.
By 1887 the sugar growers, mostly White Americans, had become so powerful that they demanded and got the Kingdom to give Pearl Harbor to the US as a military base.
In 1893, with the help of US Marines, they overthrew Queen Liliuokalani. They replaced her with Sanford Dole, the son of missionaries, and asked the US to take over.
The queen went to see President Grover Cleveland. She crossed the US by train and saw its vast lands and wasted water. Why on earth would Americans want her country?
American opinion was divided on whether to take over Hawaii:
- Pro: Theodore Roosevelt and business leaders were for it. Roosevelt, an imperialist, knew that without Hawaii the US could not become the top power in the Pacific. Trade would suffer. To Roosevelt, not taking Hawaii was “a crime against white civilization.”
- Con: The president and labour leaders were against it. Cleveland, a believer in democracy, knew that most Hawaiians supported the queen, not Dole. To Cleveland, the coup was a disgrace. Many Americans believed that the US, as a democracy, should not practise imperialism.
Cleveland did not take over Hawaii, but neither was he able to restore the queen.
In 1894 Dole made himself president of the Republic of Hawaii.
In 1898, with Cleveland out of office, the US took possession of Hawaii. President McKinley made Dole governor.
See also:
- Notes on the American Empire
- white man’s burden
- Mount Rushmore – a bit more on Theodore Roosevelt
- American ethnic groups: a brief history: 1492 to 2100
- Obama in Hawaii
- Maori – also Polynesian
- Philippine-American War
Most of this information is available, with maybe a few fictional twists, in James Michener’s ” Hawaii “. & from what I’ve studied, ” pure – blooded ” Hawaiians are almost non – existent, since workers from Asia & even Mexico & the Caribbean ( Mostly Puerto Rico ) were brought there.
LikeLike
Queen Liliokaulani doubt be appalled at the abuse of resources on the Big Island. Joni Mitchell wrote a song ( ” Big Yellow Taxi “? ) in which she laments the fact that they ” paved paradise “, sacrificing native lands to erect large buildings & to put down parking lots.
LikeLike
@ zathra
I was thinking about “paved paradise” too! – and this part of “The Last Resort” by the Eagles:
LikeLike
Apparently ” sacred land ” has taken on a new dimension, bolstered by Euro – American thought. It’s only ” sacred ” if you can pour concrete over it & build a strip mall on it. What about a nice casino to honour the ancestors ?
BTW, I did some research – King Kamehameha was apparently a sell – out, Queen Liliuokalani is still regarded as a ” freedom fighter “. & a fair number number of Hawaiians want their government back.
LikeLike
Just for the record, the number that is shared in Hawai’i was about 900,000 before Cook. By the time of the coup, the number were down to 90.000. Mostly from diseases.
Pure-Blood Hawaiian is hard to find, the seventh island, Ni’hau, is said to contain ~250 person that qualify. The island is privately owned, and people there don’t move apparently (rumor I heard there). On overall all the islands, I heard that there are 2000 pure-blood (speculation???).
On a final note, most of the descendants of the missionaries are part of a small elite group of rich people… (what a surprise)
About the group of imported workforce, you forgot the Filipino, Okinawan, and the Korean.
I am for Hawaiian independence (under moral ground), but sadly it will not happen for strategical reasons. You can tell by looking at google earth with Hawai’i in the middle….
Also the economy of Hawai’i is depending on 45% from tourism, 45% from money poured in by the federal state (army, navy, special fund program,…), cutting lose from mainland seems difficult economically.
LikeLike
Okay, so what’s the point of this post? Just that white people are bad because they were really successful at conquering or that they conquered too far from home (no one seems to care about localized conquests among people of similar races–or actually anything that is not white vs. other)?
I’m technically a native Hawaiian, well by birth, but people in Hawaii (including Asian Americans) just call us “haole” in a derisive way and treat us like we don’t belong… but it’s all PC as long as it’s done against white people, because we are the one and only universal evil force in world history.
Since we’re into islands in the Pacific, how about a post on cargo cults? Really a fascinating phenomenon, but doesn’t really fit the anti-white mold I guess..
LikeLike
@ biff
In this case, they were actually pretty good at carrying disease. But then Europeans seemed to be good at carrying their filthy diseases with them in many places and infecting the natives… Kind of the “Typhoid Mary” of the imperialist age, wouldn’t you say?
LikeLike
[…] "The Kingdom of Hawaii(1810-1893) was what Hawaii was before it fell under American rule.Native Hawaiians are Polynesians. They arrived in the Hawaiian islands in the time of the Roman Empire, probably from the Marquesas Islands. They knew how to sail across the ocean by the stars – long before Europeans did. They brought bananas, chickens, pigs, dogs, coconuts, taro and breadfruit. The islands already had goats and boars. Another wave of Polynesians came from Tahiti in the 1200s." […]
LikeLike
@ Biff
On closer examination, Biff is just a troll folks. Not nor have ever lived in Hawaii.
LikeLike
Sanford Dole, so this is where the pineapples come from. This was a good post.
LikeLike
Hawaii is a place, depending on which island, you can’t hold on to thoughts like that without hitting a state of mind that you are either at peace or leave. This guy is not from Hawaii, on technical scouting it’s easier to know that he’s not. Terms like anti-white etc are clues to his true intentions of posting on this blog but further technical examination confirms he’s not from Hawaii and is infact a troll….
LikeLike
@ TeddyBearChubs
Hawaii is a place, depending on which island, you can’t hold on to thoughts like that without hitting a state of mind that you are either at peace or leave.
The place is that special?
LikeLike
The British always bringing death and disease to the indigenous people.
LikeLike
^ my dirty self hasn’t infected anyone lately. 😉
LikeLike
@Legion:LOL!
LikeLike
@ Mary Burrell
Maybe that was the case years ago. I have no problem with Euros that are respectful and considerate.
LikeLike
[…] "The Kingdom of Hawaii(1810-1893) was what Hawaii was before it fell under American rule.Native Hawaiians are Polynesians. They arrived in the Hawaiian islands in the time of the Roman Empire, probably from the Marquesas Islands. They knew how to sail across the ocean by the stars – long before Europeans did. They brought bananas, chickens, pigs, dogs, coconuts, taro and breadfruit. The islands already had goats and boars. Another wave of Polynesians came from Tahiti in the 1200s." […]
LikeLike
As far as I can see, the top dogs in Hawaii now are people of Japanese descent. As for tourists, Japanese are also number 1 in terms of cash to blow, prestige, etc.
I thought Asian laborers voluntarily came to Hawaii. Hope we’re not equating this to slave labor. I can think of many worse places to live and work.
In terms of spreading disease.. there is a lot written about whites wiping out New World populations through disease, but never vice-versa, and not much re: whites completely wiping out other civilizations through disease, e.g., in Africa (that I’m aware of). it’s very strange. I wonder how accurately we can really measure original New World populations. And how can we differentiate between a plague that wipes out 1/3 of a population, which would rightly be reported by contemporaries as completely disastrous (and probably subject to some hyperbole), and one which really wipes out like 90%+ of the population?
Kiwi, thanks for sticking up for me. So I’m not a “troll” and not “lying”, I might just be… “dishonest”? Or maybe I might just have a valid viewpoint that happens to be different from yours (and the majority view here)?
LikeLike
@TBC
Biff might have been born or lived in Hawaii, but he evidently has clinged to a very strong sense of whiteness (and by “whiteness”, I mean the ideology of whiteness).
Hawaii has a large amount of people of European descent. What is different about Hawaii is that those that identify as multiracial are now a plurality. Before 2000, when people had to tick single race boxes, we had something like 60% Asian and Pacific Islander and 35% white. After multiracial identity was permitted from 2000 on, it changed to something like 40% Asian, 24% white and 24% multiracial. Besides this, there are groups like the Portuguese (Portagee) and Puerto Ricans who are not Asian or Pacific Islander or not partly so, yet don’t have this same haole complex.
I think Hawaii treats “local” haoles and mainland haoles a bit differently. Mainland haoles expect white privilege and bring that with them in Hawaii. Local haoles would just see themselves as part of the larger society. Even if he as born in Hawaii, he might be holding on to Mainland haole attitudes. (Actually, by all he has said, he thinks very much like a mainland haole even if he was born and raised in Hawaii).
The following is telling:
Gee, this is a person who told us previously that is normal and natural to treat 3rd and 4th generation Asian-Americans as perpetual foreigners as that is what white temporary visitors to China or Japan should expect.
LikeLike
Ha! I can well imagine Legion wearing jodhpurs and a pith helmet, astride his percheron warhorse, mercilessly beating the sea of natives around him about their heads and shoulders with his riding crop. “Down, you savages, down!” he cries, sneezing occasionally into his handkerchief for good measure.
LikeLike
[…] "The Kingdom of Hawaii(1810-1893) was what Hawaii was before it fell under American rule.Native Hawaiians are Polynesians. They arrived in the Hawaiian islands in the time of the Roman Empire, probably from the Marquesas Islands. They knew how to sail across the ocean by the stars – long before Europeans did. They brought bananas, chickens, pigs, dogs, coconuts, taro and breadfruit. The islands already had goats and boars. Another wave of Polynesians came from Tahiti in the 1200s." […]
LikeLike
Biff’s right; there is a surprising amount of racism in Hawaii….don’t know why just always thought it would be better than that.
And technically haole is a non-racial term but it does seem to apply mostly to white people who come to the islands.
That being said; hawaiins are also pretty racist against black people.
And they aren’t fans of any haole really; race aside if they know you are “flown there, not grown there” they might not be fans of you.
LikeLike
That might be due to the Mormon presence in Hawaii. Mormons don’t care much for black people, even though there are some African – American Mormons across the U.S. No idea what they think of other ethnic groups.
LikeLike
[…] "The Kingdom of Hawaii(1810-1893) was what Hawaii was before it fell under American rule.Native Hawaiians are Polynesians. They arrived in the Hawaiian islands in the time of the Roman Empire, probably from the Marquesas Islands. They knew how to sail across the ocean by the stars – long before Europeans did. They brought bananas, chickens, pigs, dogs, coconuts, taro and breadfruit. The islands already had goats and boars. Another wave of Polynesians came from Tahiti in the 1200s." […]
LikeLike
@ biff
Well it was you that brought up on somebody’s personal blog that reporting on history is “anti-white” which is typical pro white nationalist response. If you don’t like factual history because you think it makes white people look bad that’s just beyond stupidity and not a valid view point. Tell me biff how is your “white genocide” and “pro white” or “hawaii for whites only” campaign working out for you? How often has your head been bashed in or teeth and jaw mis aligned from being curb stomped?
@ zathra
I can tell you that mormonism is probably most popular among the Tongans. There is nothing in the scripture of mormonism that I know of that is anti-black or African. As for the opinion of black people in Hawaii, I can tell you now it’s probably media based rather than actual social contact or enlightenment. Most people not from Hawaii take a long time to get established and majority face a lifetime of alienation if they are not able to find a social network and settle in. Hawaii is a place to visit and not live if you ask me personally.
LikeLike
@jefe
biff is a pile of BS….
LikeLike
TBC:
Haven’t been “curb stomped” yet, though I did get punched by a black gang member once because I couldn’t answer the question “are you a Blood or a Cuz?” correctly. Thanks for asking.
History is always a story (the translated word for these is even the same in Spanish). It is always told from a particular viewpoint. Which details are included or excluded is a subjective matter. You can bet a “factual history” of Hawaii prepared by the elites in the U.S. 100 years ago would be very different in tone and focus than the one that is produced by them now (which would be pretty much the same as what Abagond has put together above).
Telling the story of the cargo cults or the tribe that still worships England’s Prince Philip as an actual god is also a legitimate part of history. However, it could be told in a “factual” way that is not particularly PC, though Abagond could certainly have a go at making something PC out of it.
LikeLike
By the TBC, thanks for the latest ad hominem.
To illustrate my point, here is part of an older history of Hawaii I found in 2 minutes on Google, that has a very different tone and focus than Abagond’s now mainstream PC presentation:
“The history of the Polynesian islands, which Captain Cook named in honor of the Earl of Sandwich, is an extraordinary example of the transforming powers of modern civilization. Physically, the natives were splendid specimens of humanity, morally they ranked below other races who were their intellectual inferiors. After Captain Cook’s visit the natives quickly developed modern ideas. First they paid the white man homage as if to a god, afterwards they killed him, though the religious leaders continued to venerate his bones. A powerful chief, Kamehameha, became king by conquering the chiefs of the lesser islands, making Hawaii the seat of power from the beginning of the nineteenth century.
Kamehameha encouraged the visits of ships from England and other countries. The voluptuous charms of the women of Owhyee, as the name of the island was at first written, the beauty of the scenery, and its salubrious climate, soon made it a favorite stopping place. The king gladly traded with the foreigners, and welcomed American and English missionaries, to whose labors the present high level of native civilization are mainly due. Cannibalism was discontinued, the licentiousness that used to prevail has been minimized, education soon began to show good results and the people were not slow to avail themselves of every advantage offered. Nevertheless the race Captain Cook introduced to civilization is doomed to extinction. The sins of their ancestors have been slowly but surely sapping the vitality of the later generations. The colony of hopeless lepers tells a pitiful tale, the barbarian cannot fight against the law which awards the future to the fittest among men and nations.
For many years the Hawaiian Islands have been drifting by natural law under the American flag. The transformation of semi-savages into a remarkably progressive people was mainly accomplished by the efforts of American missionaries early in the century, who taught the growing generation to read and write, and become proficient in the domestic arts. Former customs have rapidly died out before the march of American civilization. To all intents and purposes Honolulu has been an average American city for a quarter of a century past. “
LikeLike
I really hope that Polynesians have formed their own narrative of history.
I would like to know what they teach in the Kamehameha School – does it reek of Euro-centric white paternalism? How about the schools in Tahiti? Samoa? Tonga?
LikeLike
@ Biff
The plurality of sources I consulted were by White American liberals written since 1970, so the post probably does have a White liberal bias. If you can point out particular cases of it, that would be helpful. I did consult some White centre-right sources, Asian sources and a White racist one from 1920, but NO Native Hawaiian sources, which is bad. My library had Queen Liliuokalani’s book, but it was out. I did get to read an excerpt from it in another book. I would want to read that book and other Native sources if I were doing a series of posts on Hawaii.
MOST of my sources say that Cook was received as a god, but some dispute that, so I left that part out.
Your excerpt seems way more biased than my post.
LikeLike
Abagond said:
“Your excerpt seems way more biased than my post.”
Of course, because we are looking at this in 2014. In 1914, which account would seem more reasonable to the average American citizen? Who is to say that your account will still seem reasonable in 2114?
I will say that the excerpt I provided could be seen as more “overtly biased”, because it includes a fair amount of explanatory commentary (e.g., re: moral degeneracy). However, think about things that people in 1914 would note when reading your post. From a very quick reading, they would likely question the historical reliability of your “pre-contact” history and the following:
“In 1778 the British explorer Captain Cook arrived. He and the whites who came after him brought guns, liquor, metal, the profit motive – and disease. Due to disease, Native Hawaiians went from being at least 300,000 strong in Cook’s time down to just 50,000 a hundred years later.”
They would take issue with this characterization of Captain Cook, who was a revered hero (and worshiped by the Hawaiians before being killed and cooked–pun intended–which is completely left out), and that European/American diseases were responsible for decimating Hawaiians over the course of 100+ years. You also leave out the fact that the Hawaiians (at least many of them) welcomed the Europeans and their wares.
“Then came the drunken whalers, who used Hawaii to supply their ships. And then, worst of all, came the sugar growers.”
They would certainly take issue with this negative language. For them, agriculture was part of “civilization” and civilization was much better than “savagery”.
“Why on earth would Americans want her country?”
You earlier seem to insinuate that the Kingdom of Hawaii was not legitimate, since it was facilitated through use of European guns, but now it’s “her country”?
A majority of the people in Hawaii were Asian imports at this time and their livelihoods were tied to American industry. If they had a vote, joining America may well have won. Immigration and democracy in action.
“Roosevelt, an imperialist, knew that without Hawaii the US could not become the top power in the Pacific.” This is pretty clearly an exaggeration. Other Islands in the Pacific could have been (and were) used by the US in the 20th century.
Those are some initial thoughts. Anyway, it’s cool that you’re researching your posts and acknowledge the type of sources you used.
I just don’t think there is any one “history” of anything significant that is not “biased” in some sense.
LikeLike
[…] "The Kingdom of Hawaii(1810-1893) was what Hawaii was before it fell under American rule.Native Hawaiians are Polynesians. They arrived in the Hawaiian islands in the time of the Roman Empire, probably from the Marquesas Islands. They knew how to sail across the ocean by the stars – long before Europeans did. They brought bananas, chickens, pigs, dogs, coconuts, taro and breadfruit. The islands already had goats and boars. Another wave of Polynesians came from Tahiti in the 1200s." […]
LikeLike
My heart bleeds for you.
I suppose the average white South African also has this same sort of blind spot. Here you are, born in a land which your ancestors forcefully expropriated from the true native population. As far as they’re concerned, you are the “foreigner,” the interloper – and yet you have the nerve to call yourself a “native” and wonder why the real natives could care less for you being there.
Really, it’s like a burglar breaking into your home, helping himself to all of your food and then wondering why you’re upset he’s there in the first place. It’s the sort of non-thinking tone-deafness that white cultures seem to specialize in. And they honestly have no clue as to why they’re not that well liked…
LikeLike
Also, most white cultures have an expectation that they should be loved and welcomed with open arms by all. Or better still, worshiped like gods. It genuinely unnerves them when they don’t get that “red carpet” treatment from the natives.
LikeLike
^ a habit of white privilege creates all sorts of expectations.
LikeLike
My heart bleeds for you.
Hahahahahahaha!!! Love ya Mack!
LikeLike
Here is another recent more enlightening perspective I came across…Which In my view is more in accord with Abagond’s post…
This is an oh so familiar story about how land was stolen, taken by imperialist countries (this time the US) from native peoples. Even though they had been granted and recognized as a sovereign state. History has shown time and time again that such treaties when signed are worthless when they conflict with the interests of corporate government backed Western elites.
(http://youtu.be/wFO1PVNbd1E)
LikeLike
@biff & jefe
The problem is progressiveness is given too much into “white” influences when in reality it was a collective effort on behalf of everybody including Asia. You have to remember the missionaries mainly prescribed a lethal dose of hopeless christianity backed up by a pile of mythology that only convoluted the minds of non-whites into anything but a progressive state of mind. European Christians to this day have problems with different sects of Christianity as well as Judaism and Islam that all originate from the Middle East. Biff, the white nationalism that you prescribe to seems to think those that partake in Judaism are the main culprit to all ills of white society. Christianity cannot exist without Judaism and the old testament of your bible. Now if that’s progressive thinking I don’t want to know what you consider good reasoning. lol
Like I said earlier world progressiveness is a collective effort that is not solely a European or Christian Missionary initiative. In biff’s mind only what Europeans did mattered and that their ideas were not influenced nor burrowed from other cultures collectively when in fact it was…
LikeLike
[…] The Kingdom of Hawaii (1810-1893) was what Hawaii was before it fell under American rule. Native Hawaiians are Polynesians. They arrived in the Hawaiian islands in the time of the Roman Empire, pro… […]
LikeLike
Captain Cook, the great explorer and navigator.
This was the way I learned about him, and though his many competences are not in doubt, his visits changed the course of these islands.
(By “changed”, would it be better to say “his visits calamitous consequences on the islands…”?)
He also died, or was killed, there. There are different versions to it, but one account says:
Cook and his crew were welcomed by the Hawaiians, who were fascinated by the Europeans’ ships and their use of iron. Cook provisioned his ships by trading the metal, and his sailors traded iron nails for sex. The ships then made a brief stop at Ni’ihau and headed north to look for the western end of a northwest passage from the North Atlantic to the Pacific. Almost one year later, Cook’s two ships returned to the Hawaiian Islands and found a safe harbor in Hawaii’s Kealakekua Bay.
It is suspected that the Hawaiians attached religious significance to the first stay of the Europeans on their islands. In Cook’s second visit, there was no question of this phenomenon. Kealakekua Bay was considered the sacred harbor of Lono, the fertility god of the Hawaiians, and at the time of Cook’s arrival the locals were engaged in a festival dedicated to Lono. Cook and his compatriots were welcomed as gods and for the next month exploited the Hawaiians’ good will. After one of the crewmen died, exposing the Europeans as mere mortals, relations became strained. On February 4, 1779, the British ships sailed from Kealakekua Bay, but rough seas damaged the foremast of the Resolution, and after only a week at sea the expedition was forced to return to Hawaii.
The Hawaiians greeted Cook and his men by hurling rocks; they then stole a small cutter vessel from the Discovery. Negotiations with King Kalaniopuu for the return of the cutter collapsed after a lesser Hawaiian chief was shot to death and a mob of Hawaiians descended on Cook’s party. The captain and his men fired on the angry Hawaiians, but they were soon overwhelmed, and only a few managed to escape to the safety of the Resolution. Captain Cook himself was killed by the mob. A few days later, the Englishmen retaliated by firing their cannons and muskets at the shore, killing some 30 Hawaiians. The Resolution and Discovery eventually returned to England.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/captain-cook-killed-in-hawaii
LikeLike
Obviously, white trolls like biff will definitely antagonize anyone that combats white racism/colonialism/imperialism.That’s like asking biff does he support Professor Haunani-Kay Trask or Hawaiian sovereignty?
biff said:
“I’m technically a native Hawaiian, well by birth, but people in Hawaii [including Asian Americans] just call us “haole” in a derisive way and treat us like we don’t belong.”
According to Kanaka Maoli (Native Hawaiian) history, whites DIDN’T come to Hawaii with an invitation. As unwanted guests, the haole definitely ended a beautiful kingdom headed by a beautiful Native Hawaiian woman. So technically, biff is NOT a Native Hawaiian, he is a descendant of unwanted guests. An African proverb says: “A wooden log can float in a river for millennia [thousands of years], but that doesn’t make it a crocodile.”
For non-trolling commenters – “Haole” – pronounced how-lee – is a Native Hawaiian word for a white person who is typically seen as a foreigner to the Kanaka Maoli. As the white man is called “haole” in Hawaii, he is called “mzungu” in parts of Africa. Mzungu means white person or foreigner. Ashe!
LikeLike
@ Michael Cooper
The thing about the term “Haole” is that even white families in Hawaii that have mixed or even skin tone mutated over the generations, yes the babies are born extra tan even without admixture, use that term against new arrivals or anybody that didn’t grow up in Hawaii. I’ve read African Americans visiting that got called Haole. That’s the thing about Hawaii and how I knew biff was a fake. Most Haoles that grew up on the islands literally take up the cause and fight for Hawaii Sovereignty and not negotiate against it.
biff is a fake and fraud and talks from his ass…
LikeLike
If you are local you have a better chance in Hawaii then if not. That is all
LikeLike
@TBC
And I think that goes for local haoles too (as opposed to mainland haoles). Haoles still run much of the business and politics in Hawaii. Punahou high school always had a large percentage of haoles too, even 30-40 years ago when Obama was there.
I think Asians from both the mainland USA and from Asia also have to take time to adjust to the culture there. Haoles are no different. It is just that mainland haoles are perceived as outsiders.
LikeLike
I’d love to visit any island other than Oahu. I haven’t been to Oahu in 13 years but would love to know Hawaii outside of Oahu….
LikeLike
Haole isn’t specific to the white race; while most commonly used with them, its technically a non-racial term, that means something like “breatheless” or “soul-less”….closer to gaijin as a term for outsiders than about race.
LikeLike
Yes, that is the original meaning, but it took on a racialized meaning in the 20th century. Haole, without any qualification, normally does not refer to Hawaiians of Chinese, Japanese, Filipino descent.
Someone who is Japanese-Filipino-Irish-German is Hapa-haole, despite all of their ancestry being technically “haole”.
LikeLike
Kind of depends; I’m guessing in mixed company Hawaiians are less likely to refer to non-white people as haoles since they need a strong power base and the best way to do that is to expand it to other people of color.
At least when around them.
Though I can imagine that since many Hawaiians are mixed they don’t want to deal with the aspect of non-white haole-dom.
Have to contemplate their own sense of identity and belonging.
That being said; the more blatantly mixed ones do seem to stick together. Though admit ably my interactions on hawaii were limited.
LikeLike
“Full-blooded” Hawaiians are extremely few in number. Technically, 99% of Hawaiians are haole or hapa-haole.
I think that the split might be more mainland vs. Kama’aina. I think haoles who see themselves as Kama’aina have less problem with local Hawaiians. Of course, if a haole moves there from the mainland, this will be almost impossible to obtain.
LikeLike
From what I’ve read, there is like 8,000 Kana’ka Maolis (full-blooded Hawaiians) left…they live on an island that don’t have any haoles and few hapas.
Here is an article about the Hawaiian Independence and how Obama is being petitioned to consider giving the Kana’ka Maolis a seperate designation similar to that of the Native Americans.
some Hawaiians are for it and others are against it:
“Obama urged by Democrats to use executive order to recognize Hawaiians like native Indians. And you know how well that worked out for the indigenous Americans.”
Democrats are urging President Obama to bypass Capitol Hill once again and accomplish by executive order what Congress refused to do for 13 years: grant formal federal tribal recognition to Native Hawaiians.
The effort lost its most visible champion in January when Sen. Daniel K. Akaka, Hawaii Democrat, retired without having won passage for his namesake legislation, the so-called Akaka bill. The measure has not been introduced in the current Congress.
Supporters, including the all-Democrat Hawaiian delegation, say the recognition is needed to ensure that Native Hawaiians continue to receive special services in health care, job training and education.
Opponents argue that the measure sanctions race-based discrimination and would set a precedent for establishing divisive, racially separate societies. Some even fear the designation could open the island to gambling operations along the lines of Indian tribe concessions run on the mainland.
“Hawaiians have never been defined by race or by blood. They’ve always been inclusive,” said Keli’i Akina, president of the free-market Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, which opposes the Akaka bill. “The establishment of a race-based entity is not Hawaiian.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/22/obama-urged-to-use-executive-order-to-recognize-na/
LikeLike
@ Zathra& Abagond: Thanks for the Joni Mitchell “Yellow Taxi” reference, I always wanted to know what that song was about. Thank you for that.
LikeLike
I understand what everyone is saying about the haole, but the fact remains white people were not invited to Hawaii by the Native Hawaiians. I can say the same about my mother’s home island-country of Fiji (Bula!). Whites came to Fiji and other South Pacific islands without an invitation. They were not invited by South Pacific islanders.
I’m the product of a black man (from Osyka, Mississippi) and a black woman (from Viti Levu, Fiji). My mother can easily pass for an African-American woman. She has dark-brown skin and frizzy hair. She’s a buiniga (natural)-haired beauty!
In Fiji, whites are simply called white people. Fijians of mixed Fijian and European ancestry are called “kai loma”, which means part-white. Unfortunately, the Native Hawaiians have gone through a bigger racial amalgamation than the Fijians.
LikeLike
@Michael Cooper,
You should write something for us. 🙂
Did you hear any name for mixed Fijian- African-American? 😛 How about the Asians in Fiji?
But seriously, were whites ever invited to arrive anywhere? I suspect any historical narrative that mentions how natives “welcome” white settlers.
LikeLike
@Michael Cooper
Yeah but then neither was anybody else, like the Asians that white people brought over.
@Jefe
I think white people got invited to mexico and then they “alamo’ed” the joint.
Some Indian tribes were cool with us….that usually didn’t go to their benefit whether via us being jack wagons or disease or simply cross breeding.
LikeLike
V4,
I see you are still stuck on your fantasy that the Native Americans liked white people back in the day…
yep, nothing like being “cool” with the people who murdered your neighbors, friends and family…. black people had the same problem back then too…they also slept with and wanted to be friends with the enemy.
LikeLike
Slowing reading through the thread from the start, and came across this comment from Zathra in response to V-4, who said that Hawaiians are pretty racist towards black people and aren’t fans of the Haole:
Zathra said:
It’s hard to say whether any racist beliefs towards black people on the islands is attributable to Mormon scripture. There could be other reasons.
But seeing as Mormons have been there since 1850, and Mormons make up at least 5% of the population on the islands, Mormon influence can’t be simply dismissed.
And, it is certainly true that Mormonism has a long history of enshrining anti-black skin racism in its beliefs. Basically, dark skin is a curse from God — any dark-complected races are so cursed. There was the belief that God created (black) slavery and no one should oppose it, and up until 1978 black priests were a no-no.
A few quotes on the subject from well-known Mormons (there are others in the 2nd link at the bottom:
The Apostle Ezra T. Benson said:
don’t try to free the negroes, let God do it
Brigham Young stated:
low races are cursed with black skin and flat nose
John Taylor (third President of the Church) believed:
a black man survived Noah’s flood so that Satan would always have representatives on earth.<
And so on.
http://www.exmormon.org.uk/tol_arch/atozelph/racism.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/darron-t-smith-phd/the-mormon-church-disavow_b_4440244.html
LikeLike
@Linda
Yeah; believe it or not some of the tribes actually were our allies from time to time.
Its not like Natives were automatically given to xenophobia some I’m not sure why that’s surprising.
LikeLike
@ V-4
Exactly. Fiji and Guyana have have similar stories. The British brought over East Indians to work on the sugarcane plantations in Fiji. Whites (in any country that’s not theirs) are ALWAYS at the root of non-white racial conflict. The 1987 bloodless coup in Fiji (between the native Fijians and Indo-Fijians) is an excellent example.
LikeLike
“V-4@Linda
Yeah; believe it or not some of the tribes actually were our allies from time to time.
Its not like Natives were automatically given to xenophobia some I’m not sure why that’s surprising.”
Linda says,
and black people fought for the Confederate army… did that stop black people from being oppressed and murdered by white citizens of southern States?
Marcus Garvey had a loose alliance with the white supremacist KKK–even though they hate black people, they were willing to work with him in order to achieve their goal — getting rid of black people in America.
You will always find people in history who sided with a group of people, who were not their friends and would do them harm, because that is human nature– everyone tries to work for what they believe is in their best interest at the time … but unfortunately, it doesn’t always work out for the side that do not hold the power or the advantage.
that’s why many Native American tribes were massacred by the very same group of people who had eaten at their tables…
So, your narrative about Native Americans being “cool” with white people is not quite accurate. It took the Africans and the Pacific islanders a little bit of time to learn the same lessons.
LikeLike
The Native Hawaiians that are “racist” towards blacks are the ones who have been ingrained with white institutional racism. (Unfortunately, we’re all products/victims of the white man’s public or private school system in the States – like it or not.) Here on the mainland, we have “whitened blacks” that are racist towards blacks as well. Abagond’s enlightened post on ‘Internalized Racism’ breaks it down profoundly. But there is an overwhelmingly Native Hawaiian population that allies with black people and their struggles.
In the November 1983 issue of National Geographic, Louise E. Levathes wrote that:
Throughout the islands, native Hawaiians have a deep emotional relational to their past. To them, it is as tangible – and in many ways as unsettled – as the bones in the Wailuku dunes. Since the arrival of British explorer Captain James Cook in 1778 and the gradual domination of Western culture [culminating with state hood in 1959], they have rarely expressed these feelings openly. Decimated by the white man’s diseases, Hawaiians became a minority in their own land. Their cultural pride suffered under who vilified them for polygamy, public nakedness, and ‘lewd’ and ‘wicked’ dancing. ‘Even when I was growing up, Hawaiians were considered second-class citizens,’ said Phil Kwiatkowski, 35, a security guard who is part-Hawaiian. ‘Some would hide it, if they could. To be Hawaiian carried a certain stigma – it meant you were ignorant, lazy, primitive, pagan.’
The winds of the civil rights movement of the sixties reached Hawaii a decade ago [1970s], bringing cultural awareness and political activism to the islands. Hawaiians and part-Hawaiians, now 19 percent of the state’s 994,000 people, began excitedly exploring their rich cultural heritage. They re-created a 3,000-mile canoe voyage of their Polynesian ancestors, stepped up the restoration of historic sites, and revived ancient hula, chanting, religion, and traditional crafts and sports in an ongoing love-fest that has been called the Hawaiian Renaissance.
Sources:
1983 National Geographic (November issue)
http://www.hookele.com/non-hawaiians/chapter.3html
(read 10th paragraph)
LikeLike
@Linda
The difference between black people and the natives was that one was an oppressed people’s and the other was a conflict between nations that at one time or another worked together.
Basically the same as any other group of empires that will work together at one point and go to war the next.
The tribes weren’t being forced or tricked into it; it was simply profitable to work with us at some points and not profitable at others.
Sure natives got massacred but they also managed to win conflicts and force the US to sign a peace treaty at one point.
Not that we ever really abide by it and due to racism and disease ultimately came out ahead anyways.
@Michael Cooper
Maybe so but they still agreed to come. That doesn’t abdicate them of their own personal responsibility.
LikeLike
“V-4,
The difference between black people and the natives was that one was an oppressed people’s and the other was a conflict between nations that at one time or another worked together.”
Linda says,
Please take your medication 🙂 … it seems you are having hallucinations about history.
I can read you know, and I have read American history.. so your fantasies are not reality, no matter how many times you repeat it.
The following is a representative survey of conflicts between Native Americans and Europeans over three centuries, from 1622 to 1890
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1008.html
Quick history lesson about the Seminole Wars:
“ Following the War of 1812 between the United States and Britain, American slave owners came to Florida in search of runaway African slaves and Indians. These Indians, known as the Seminole, and the runaway slaves had been trading weapons with the British throughout the early 1800s and supported Britain during the War of 1812. From 1817-1818, the United States Army invaded Spanish Florida and fought against the Seminole and their African American allies. Collectively, these battles came to be known as the First Seminole War.”
http://fcit.usf.edu/florida/lessons/sem_war/sem_war1.htm
The Native Americans were NEVER your white ancestors friends, V4 — because your white ancestors were “uninvited occupiers” of their land… the Native Americans were never “cool” with that
please stop with the fairy tales and put down the hash pipe
LikeLike
“FARMINGTON, N.M. — William Blackie’s money ran out near midnight. His luck soon followed.
It was a Saturday night, last June 4, when Blackie, a 46-year-old Navajo, left the bar at the Anasazi Inn on foot, walking west along one of Farmington’s main drags.
He later told police he’d only made it as far as the parking lot of the American Furniture store, a few blocks from the inn, when three white youths in a white pickup, who later admitted they were trolling for a victim, pulled alongside. They offered to give him a ride if he’d buy them beer with their money.
Blackie sensed trouble. He asked Winer to pull over so he could relieve himself and Winer did, but no sooner had Blackie stepped out than he was clocked hard and fast in the head with a club. He fell to the ground and tried to crawl away as the men stomped and kicked his prone body, shouting, “Die n’i’gger! Just die!”
Anonymous tips led police to Winer, Carnie, and Brooks. All three have been charged with felony assault and kidnapping. They have also been charged with hate crimes, marking the first time prosecutors have ever filed hate crime charges in Farmington, a town with a history of brutal crimes against American Indians that dates back to the 1870s, when white residents reportedly used Navajos for target practice, shooting them on the streets for fun.
According to the Department of Justice study, the overall violent crime rate among American Indians and Alaska Natives is 100 per 1,000 persons, meaning one out of 10 American Indians or Native Americans has been a victim of violence. That rate is twice as high as the rate for blacks, two and a half times higher than whites, and four and a half times higher than Asians.
Racial violence directed at American Indians and Alaska Natives today certainly does not approach the levels seen during the white settlement of the prairies and deserts of the western United States. And while it may be true that conditions have improved in Farmington, just as race relations on a larger scale between white Americans and indigenous Americans have improved since the era when Indians were routinely massacred as a matter of governmental policy, recent bloodshed in New Mexico, Kentucky and other states demonstrates that racially motivated attacks on American Indians and Alaska Natives are still extensive, and too often minimized.”
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2006/winter/indian-blood
Linda says,
Yes, violence against the Native Americans by white Americans has been minimized, which is exactly what you are doing V4 by trying to put out your fantasy that Native Americans and white people were “friends”
BS… white people dished it out and the Native Americans took it because they were massacred almost into extinction.
LikeLike
Native American fights with white people that didn’t make the first list
1758 The Anglo-Cherokee War (1758–1761) – The Cherokee uprising in present-day Tennessee, Virginia and the Carolinas.
1763 Pontiac’s Rebellion, aka the Pontiac War (1763–66), broke out in the Ohio River Valley. The Ottawa Chief Pontiac (1720-1769) led a rebellion of a number of tribes against the British
1775 Lord Dunmore’s War in Southern Ohio. Lord Dunmore, the Governor of Virginia sent 3000 solders who defeated 1000 Native Indians following battles and conflicts between American Native Indians and the settlers and traders.
1776 Chickamauga Wars, aka the Second Cherokee War, (1776–1794) Cherokee involvement in the American Revolutionary War which continued through late 1794
from 1776 to 1794 were a series of raids, campaigns, ambushes, minor skirmishes, and several full-scale frontier battles in the Upper South and American Southeast (the Old Southwest) which were a continuation of the Cherokee (Ani-Yunwiya, Ani-Kituwa, Tsalagi, Talligewi) struggle during and after the American Revolutionary War against encroachment by American frontiersmen from the former British colonies
I could keep going with names of battles and fights because it seemed as though the Native Americans could not take a flippin breath…white people stayed up their butts like flies on sh’t… I don’t think history shows that the Native Americans were “cool” with that…
nope, their relationship definitely didn’t fall into the “friendship” category, especially since white Americans back then had a popular saying:
“The only good Indian is a dead Indian.”
http://www.trivia-library.com/b/origins-of-sayings-the-only-good-indian-is-a-dead-indian.htm
LikeLike
Bulanik
I agree with your comment in full. I highly doubt anyone can really attribute hate against black to Mormonism alone. Also Mormons are more open to other Mormons than they are to other people. I as a black Mormon would have a better interaction with a Hawaiian Mormon or other Mormon than a non-member black or other race in most cases. It mainly depends on the person and what doctrine they have stuck in their brain.
LikeLike
@ Sharina, thanks. I know what you say is 100% through personal experience.
LikeLike
Bulanik
Yes. That is only my personal experience. I should have been more clear on that as to not give the idea that this is all Mormon or the general outlook of Mormons.
LikeLike
Beautiful queen. I have to take issue with your statement that the White people taught the original Hawaiian people to dress modestly. Modest dress is relative to cultural clothing norms. If everyone was wearing grass skirts or loincloths or whatever Hawaiians used to wear in their hot and humid climate, then that was the normal, respectful, humble, modest way of dressing in that place and time. Being immodest is when people dress in a provocative way in order to draw attention to their bodies, and perhaps when they are careless about considering how their clothing choices will be interpreted – not when they dress in a way that’s normal, practical, and sensible for the situation (in this case, living and working on a tropical island and making clothes with the materials they had). It’s like how it’s acceptable to wear very little clothing at the beach, but the same amount of clothing in an office setting would be distracting and inappropriate. In fact, wearing a lot of clothing in a place where most wear little could actually be attention-seeking and immodest. The Whites introduced new standards of dress to the Hawaiians, thereby changing the local ideas of modesty, but they did not introduce modesty to the island.
LikeLike
@ Paige
Thanks for the correction. I corrected it to say “cover their breasts”.
LikeLike
@Linda
Of course they were; at different points in time in history. As already stated; allegiances changed, wars happened, conflicts erupted…..racism was carried out.
But by and large the Native Nations were not anti-immigration, racist or xenophobic.
Some allied with us; some sold or traded lands…..its just one of those things.
LikeLike
V4- and as I already stated… history speaks for itself and it shows that you are delusional…repetition on your part, does not make it true.
Africans from various nations, were not anti-immigration, racist or xenophobic either.. they welcomed white people at first just like the Native American Indians… and learned the same bitter lessons as the Native Americans.
so I guess the Africans were white peoples “friends” as well — really good friends– they even had slumber parties on white people’s ships, as they
were chained and packed like sardinessailed to visit the Americas as “honoured” guestsI know it hurts to hear, but white Americans were not universally “loved” by the Native Americans back in the day, even though some of them suffered from “Stockholm’s Syndrome” — the word you are looking for is “tolerated”..
the way a dog has to tolerate fleas until he gets a bath
LikeLike
@ Paige
(ahem) Shouldn’t that be beautiful prince? (or some other compliment in the masculine)
LikeLike
From Journal of Navajo Education, Fall/Winter 1996/97.
In this article Cornel Pewewardy, a Comanche-Kiowa, analyzes the ongoing misrepresentation of American Indians in mainstream media His centerpiece example is the movie Pocahontas, released in 1995 by the Disney Corporation.
We know that the white man’s images of us have little or nothing to do with the reality of Indian life. Most of these images are fictional creations of the white imagination and ignore what we are truly like.
Contradictory views of Indians, from gentle and good to terrifying and evil, stem from a Eurocentric ambivalence toward an entire race of people that Euro-Americans attempted to destroy.
The modern version of a “real” Indian princess in Pocahontas: Friend of the White Man is entirely a product of Western colonialism and is paradoxical.
The Mattoponi speak of Pocahontas as a remarkable young woman (Almeida, 1995). Her real name was Matowa.
Unfortunately, she has been unjustly portrayed in history as a supporter of the invading English settlers, thus giving her the reputation amongst American Indians as being an “apple and a sellout”.
The reality is that she was a strong supporter of her people, and at a young age was put into the position of acting as an interpreter and ambassador between two cultures.
The importance of her political position must have been recognized by the English, since they kidnapped her and held her as a political prisoner.
Once oppressive cultural attitudes are implanted, they are hard to antidote. No one gains by allowing negative stereotypes to continue.
Just as important issues in Indian country are ready to be addressed, it seems we fall back on old battles about the literary canon. Indian people have so many other critical issues that need resolution: such as
the federal Indian budget, gaming agreements, loss of tribal languages, land claims, impact aid, access to higher education, standardized testing, environment exploitation and degradation, freedom of religion and protection of sacred sites, treaty rights, repatriation of artifacts, and protection of burial sites and return of Indian remains.
Yet we cannot really move on when (white) people do not want to learn the truth about United States history.
We live in a society that suffers from historical amnesia, and we find it very difficult to preserve the memory of those (First Nation) who have resisted and struggled over time for the ideas of freedom, democracy and equality
http://www.hanksville.org/storytellers/pewe/writing/Pocahontas.html
Linda says,
Native Americans considered Pocahontas an “apple and a sellout” for being friends with the white people… yeah V4, it seems the Native Americans really loved your ancestors.
LikeLike
Hawaii’s story by Hawaii’s Queen, the memoirs written by the last Hawaii queen Lili’uokalani(1838-1917). She was the queen of Hawaii during 1891-1893, and overthrown January 17, 1893
https://archive.org/details/hawaiisstorybyh00goog
https://ia600309.us.archive.org/22/items/hawaiisstorybyh00goog/
LikeLike
Well covering your breasts and reading is a good idea, no matter what ethnicity you are. So is becoming Christian, so you can go to Heaven instead of Hell. That the sugar growing and whaling was bad, I agree with.
LikeLike
“Astronomers Clash Over A Giant Telescope On A Sacred Hawaiian Mountain
Construction stopped Tuesday on the $1.4 billion Thirty Meter Telescope in the face of protests from Hawaiians who believe its location is sacred. The fight has astronomers asking whether a pristine view of the stars trumps the beliefs of people on the ground.”
http://www.buzzfeed.com/azeenghorayshi/scientists-and-native-hawaiians-clash-over-construction-of-1
LikeLike
Happy Birthday anniversary to Duke Kahanamoku (August 24, 1890).
LikeLike
Duke Kahanamoku is the Google doodle today in honor of his birthday.
LikeLike
I always thought it was the US government that pushed natives off their land.
I didn’t know that Mark Zuckerberg was doing that too.
Mark Zuckerberg Sued Native Hawaiians For Their Own Land
(https://youtu.be/W6_RyE6XZiw)
LikeLike