The subject of race has been on many occasions a heated and controversial topic. We could go back to early human
history, and after, to realize how racism has been an unfortunate factor
impacting humanity, regardless of color differences.
The following gives specifics on race relations between Hawai’i and United States:
Hawai’i is one of the least publicized/known areas worldwide; its history is not that
well-known among U.S. “mainlanders” as well; primarily, it’s conceived as a
“paradise” with “docile and friendly natives.” The latter has coped with a
touristy, “Aloha Spirit” label that’s as authentic as a plastic lei.
“Mainlanders” should be more aware of Hawaiian history, e.g., regarding race,
since their use of Hawai’i as a getaway. Prominent figures in its history, for
the sake of accuracy, mainly white, have assumed Native Hawaiians as unable to
govern themselves.
Since 1778, Kanaka Maoli have been rapidly dislocated as indigenous peoples to the point of
being a “threatened” minority. It’ hard to imagine the level of culture shock
they experienced with the rapid arrival of haoles (foreigners).
In 1837, Native Hawaiian intellectual David Malo made, unfortunately, an accurate
prediction:
“If a big wave comes in, large fishes from the dark ocean which you never saw before, and
when they see the small fishes they will eat them up; they will prey on the
smaller ones; the ships of the white men have come, and smart people have
arrived from the Great countries which you never saw before, they know our
people our people are few in number and living in a small country; they will
eat us up.”
In the late 20th century, his prediction has been less likely; and perhaps
short-sighted.
Historically, trying to totally assimilate Native Hawaiians has been like trying to fit a
square peg into a circular hole. Native Hawaiians traditionally been seen
generally as one-dimensional, obviously relating to the tourist industry. The
original concept of Aloha, at the least, was pushed aside by an artificial one.
Historically, opinions from some whites in particular haven’t exactly been
compatible with the “Aloha Spirit”:
“…for the sake of commercial supremacy in the Pacific we should control the Hawaiian
Islands…it is a movement which makes for civilization and advancement of the
race.”
--U.S. Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, 1890s
"…a crime against white civilization.”
--Theodore Roosevelt criticizing the hesitancy of annexing
Hawai’i, 1893
“The aim is something above fish and poi! Let us raise the standard and bring the native up
rather than keep ourselves down to his base.”
--Lorrin Thurston, 12/30/1893
“…there will
be a deep and living interest in [the monarchy’s] birth and evolution, the
grafting of Teutonic buds on an old Polynesian stock; the movement of the
Polynesian head, with the Anglo-Saxon brain generally behind it.”
--the Honolulu Advertiser, 11/1897
“The rescue
of these islands from the absurd, grotesque tottering native dynasty was only
another step onward of liberty and civilization; another forward movement in
the conquest of the world by the Aryan race. Sir, the fittest will survive. Under
the providence of God, Anglo-Celtic civilization is accomplishing the
regeneration of the planet.”
--U.S. Representative Charles Cochran, pro-annexation
supporter, 1898
“…it may be that you have a polyglot House [of Representatives] and it will be your painful
duty to recognize, with fear and trembling, the gentleman from the ‘cannibal
islands,’ who will gaze upon you with a watering mouth and gleaming teeth.”
--U.S. Senator Champ Clark, anti-annexationist, 1897
“…no need to be sorry for, in the occasion that has called for so convincing a success,
which will be the less than real true, through the mysteries of God, the whole
native race expire as it is Christianized.”
--Rev. Henry T. Cooper, supporting the equivalent of ethnic
cleansing against Kanaka Maoli
Nowadays it is still accurate to say that white racism hasn’t vanished in Hawai’i, or
elsewhere. There’s an anti-Hawaiian Sovereignty “movement” which has made some
noise about Kanaka Maoli asserting themselves, regarding the indigenous issue.
Among the noisiest is Ken Conklin, a former University of Hawai’i professor who
of all things taught a Hawaiian Sovereignty course. (Wouldn’t it be more
applicable for him to teach anti-Sovereignty?) Conklin, among other sovereignty
deniers, claims that Native Hawaiians have been discriminatory and racist,
about a topic officially recognized by the UN Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples and by the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
the Crime of Genocide as valid. But Conklin cites the U.S. Constitution as
being a “set-in-stone” source to back up his claim.
In 2007, Conklin published a book entitled “Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and
Ethnic National in the Aloha State.” (I’m compelled to wonder if he meant the
original concept of Aloha, or the artificial.) Conklin has made it clear that
Native Hawaiians have no right to consider sovereignty, although the latter is
a major factor for indigenous identity. He is fond of Hawaiian culture, but has
an inability to connect the obvious dots of the very culture he likes to
sovereignty. He has cited the 14th and 15th Amendments
and the Voting Rights Act, justifying sovereignty deniers’ positions. What’s
interesting about his supposed support for equality and racial harmony, is that
Conklin apparently doesn’t know he has contradicted his position.
Being anti-sovereignty, Conklin no doubt supports the 1893 U.S. overthrow of Hawai’i
as a nation, and later results backing it. The U.S. position, bizarrely, claims
its sovereign right to violate sovereign rights. Further, Conklin’s position
actually indicates, at least indirectly, that he does supports racism and
inequality as these were potent factors contributing to the overthrow.
In 2001, the attractive but politically repulsive Michelle Malkin added her support,
expressed by her lightweight sarcasm, for the deniers. She used the term
“federal wampum” to equate Native Hawaiians with scam artists. She also used
her own made up jargon, “racial separatism beauracy.” She justified her stand
in referring to Japanese and Filipino immigrants correctly as citizens, giving
the impression that nonHawaiians aren’t proclaiming sovereignty, so Hawaiians
shouldn’t either. But nonHawaiians wouldn’t need to since Japan and the
Philippines already represent those backgrounds as existing, sovereign nations.
Native Hawaiians don’t have any other territory worldwide to make a justification for
self-determination, obviously. Besides, their indigenous identity originating
in Hawai’i, it’s painfully obvious, and logical, that Kanaka Maoli would choose
Hawai’i. But Malkin makes incredible accusations associating Native Hawaiians
with “apartheid” and Nazism”; when it’s painfully clear there’s fundamental
differences, e.g, of Hawaiians being the invadee, not the invader.
The deniers of course don’t recognize the fact that Hawai’i was recognized internationally
as a sovereign nation, before the “sovereign right” to violate sovereignty.
Another known denier is Thurston Twigg-Smith, ancestor of the coup maker and, yes,
racist ideologue. Like other deniers, Twigg-Smith’s position is akin to “out
sight, out of mind.” After all, “American exceptionalism” is not “allowed” to
be challenged, especially in “paradise.” L. Thurston was the grandson of the
first Christian missionaries to Hawai’i. They felt a true believers’ duty,
despite whatever positive intentions, to “save” the “native” from him/herself.
(Sounds like “bombing the village in order to save it.”)
Another historical caricature of manifest destiny was U.S. diplomat John L. Stevens.
Stevens was quite a diplomat…for pro-annexationists in Hawai’i: businessmen and
missionary descendants. But his actual diplomacy toward another nation he’s
supposed to be diplomatic to wasn’t evident. A Manifest Destiny fanatic,
Stevens, among others like his ally, State Department head James G. Blaine were
unanimous on Blaine’s assertion that an “intimate” relationship between Hawai’i
and the U.S. makes the former “part of the American system without derogation
of their absolute independence.” The problem is that the latter part was simply
bull@!$%#. Stevens’s conclusion “respecting” Hawaiian “independence” was this:
“The Hawaiian pear is now fully ripe, and this is the golden hour for the
United States to pluck it.”
An established excuse among those who have seen “fit” to historically be paternalistic
toward Kanaka Maoli goes like this; if we [the U.S.] didn’t take over Hawai’i,
another power would.” The Koani Foundation, a pro-sovereignty group, had the
appropriate response, to paraphrase: “That’s like the rapist saying ‘If I don’t
rape you, someone else will.’” BTW, this is further discredited when the
British government prevented an Admiral Paulette from trying to take over
Hawai’i, and thus restoring native sovereignty.
In response to Hawaiian assertiveness, there’s been a phenomenon revived called “Haole
Nationalism.” It sounds like “haoles” being “nationalist” to be
ultranationalist. It originated with the missionaries in 1820, although of a
slightly different character: it wasn’t necessarily consumed by hate as by an
assumed arrogance. Still, it assumed that whites had a monopoly on promoting
civilization, being the “natural order of things.” It’s possibly the reason
whites are referred to as haoles (originally, foreigners), embracing white
supremacy myths to take power earlier in Hawaiian history. This did include a
near-genocidal assimilation, i.e., trying to deny Hawaiian identity, overall.
For example, Hawaiian language being illegal.
Due to Hawaiian responses to historical injustice, whites, more domestic than foreign,
have also taken offense at the word haole. It’s been used derogatorily, as in
“You @!$%#ing haole.” Hawaiians using the term are considered “racist.” But what
is racism, really? Its foundation comprises the myth that race, color, culture,
language, etc. determine racial supremacy. It’s interesting because while there
have been Hawaiians who used it derogatorily, it’s not based on racism. NO Hawaiian
that I know of thought themselves superior to whites based on the attributes
above.
If anything, it is out of anger unresolved by letting the sovereignty issue fester like an
infection, rather than addressing it. So, it makes sense. (However, I’m not
implying that someone as an individual succumbs, in itself, to threats or
otherwise. There is the right to use the “fight or flight response,” within
human nature. But that also includes a Native Hawaiian right to use it also,
and precisely for the self-defense of indigenous rights.) This, like
anti-sovereignty, falls by the wayside, as unjustifiable excuses.
Recently,
the Right, no doubt anti-sovereignty, revealed themselves as almost certifiably
out of their minds. (Legitimate rape, anyone?) And they kept digging a
discreditable hole, and will. It’s in their political nature.
Using the racist label, or card, on Kanaka Maoli is discredited. Besides, the word is
used routinely as a matter-of-fact-term, without malice. I noticed sovereignty
deniers ignore that, along with the politically repulsive. (Federal wampum,
anyone?) With that, uses of the terms apartheid and Nazism against Kanaka Maoli
are incredible. The Right has more so shown that they usually don’t used
Leftist-coined terms accurately. Rather it’s for the association with something
bad, a crude use, considering the lack of accurate content, e.g., Obama is a
“Hitler” (!?).
The Right’s attempts to apply Leftist terms, ineffectively, is like a show of reverse
victimization. And the use of the U.S. Constitution in the name of equality and
racial harmony to stop sovereignty is unbelievable, no matter the legalese.
I’m amazed how sovereignty deniers misuse it, since their position is discredited
precisely because they support the very inequality and racism used for the
overthrow that they defend.
Denial, especially of the ultranational variety, dies hard.
So, actually, the cause of sovereignty denial is invalid, regardless of attempted
legalities.
David Starr lived in Hawai’i for 20 years, eventually being involved in the sovereignty movement. He currently
lives in Derby, Connecticut. ©2012