Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

Dialog: Was there widespread, significant, organized opposition to Hawaii statehood by ethnic Hawaiians during the 1950s?


During August 2009 the Honolulu Advertiser published a series of articles by staff reporter Michael Tsai regarding the 50th anniversary of Hawaii statehood.

One of those articles, on August 9, 2009, described Native Hawaiian opposition to statehood during the 1950s, including the question whether opposition was widespread, significant, or organized. Following the merger of the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin, the archives of the Advertiser have become degraded and hard to search. But this particular article reinforced the attitudes of the Hawaiian sovereignty activists who like to call Hawaii a "fake state." They like to say that in the 1950s there was strong opposition to statehood among ethnic Hawaiians, despite oppression which caused all of them except the powerful or affluent (like Alice Campbell) to remain silent. And so the article was saved, and remains available, on the DMZ (antiwar) website hosted by the American Friends Service Committee of Hawaii (Quakers).

In response, blogger Andrew Walden, editor of Hawaii Free Press, published a rebuttal on August 21, 2009 showing that the Advertiser article had misunderstood or actually twisted the facts about the testimony of Alice Campbell and other so-called opposition by Native Hawaiians. Walden has republished his own rebuttal article several times. Walden has numerous valuable footnotes, including many with clickable links.

Here are the two articles.

----------------

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Aug/09//hawaii908090365.html
** Article no longer available in its original location. It is available at
http://www.dmzhawaii.org/?p=3192
and has been additionally copied on the present webpage for safekeeping.

Honolulu Advertiser, August 9, 2009

Hawaii’s move into statehood traumatic for many Hawaiians
Illegal overthrow still stung for many Native Hawaiians

By Michael Tsai
Advertiser Staff Writer

Manny Fernandez was in Fort Bliss, Texas, when he and his fellow National Guard officers from back home heard the news that Hawai'i had officially joined the United States.

"We were all in one room," Fernandez recalled. "When the announcement came, it was very solemn. There was no rejoicing. We just all stood together, joined hands and sang 'Hawai'i Pono'i.' A lot of us had tears in our eyes."

Fernandez would serve in the Guard for 25 years. He took pride in his position as a chief warrant officer. But as a Native Hawaiian, Fernandez said the realization of Hawai'i's long march to statehood was nothing to celebrate.

"Even though I was an officer in the military, the fact remained that I still had loyalty to my heritage," he said. "It just felt like we had lost another thing."

The historical record shows that an overwhelming majority of those who voted in the 1959 statehood plebiscite — 94 percent (or roughly 35 percent of all eligible voters) — favored Hawai'i's inclusion in the union. The only precinct to reject the invitation was Ni'ihau, the restricted island whose population is almost entirely Native Hawaiian.

To be sure, there was ample justification for the seeming consensus. As a territory, Hawai'i lacked official representation in Congress, its governor and judges were appointed by the president, voting rights were restricted, and its social, political and economic fortunes were governed by a de facto oligarchy of concentrated business interests. Statehood, it was exhaustively argued, would allow the population at large to partake in the liberties and opportunities guaranteed to full citizens of the United States.

Even those among the entrenched power structure of the territory came to support the statehood movement as their vulnerabilities were gradually exposed through the federal government's heavy-handed reactions to threats real or perceived.

Sugar planters who initially opposed the move from territory to state largely fell in line after the passage of the Jones-Costigan Act of 1934, which set limits on the amount of sugar that could be exported tariff-free from "off-shore" producers, as Hawai'i was then deemed. While the guidelines were later changed to minimize the impact on Hawai'i growers, local plantation owners were left to ponder how easily such seemingly arbitrary decisions could affect their future.

On a broader scale, the threat of martial law during the notorious Massie/Kahahawai case of 1931 and the actual imposition of military rule during World War II affirmed to many Hawai'i residents the difference between ownership by the United States and membership in the union.

The stage was amply set by the dogged efforts of such territorial delegates as Samuel Wilder King, Joseph and Elizabeth Farrington and John A. Burns, who established the case for Hawai'i statehood with key allies in Washington.

Further, the distinguished service of Hawai'i nisei in World War II continued to be an effective umbrella retort to those who argued — often spuriously — that Hawai'i's multi-ethnic population and supposed vulnerability to communist influences (via its labor unions) posed a threat to national interests.

By the time the statehood plebiscite was put before Hawai'i voters, the outcome seemed virtually assured.

Still, as many historians now concede, support for statehood within the local community was hardly unanimous.

AGAINST STATEHOOD

Retired University of Alaska history professor John Whitehead noted in his book, "Completing the Union: Alaska, Hawaii and the Battles for Statehood," that the main opposition to statehood was posed by Native Hawaiians still stinging from the illegal overthrow of their monarchy and the subsequent annexation of Hawai'i by the United States, and by the territory's white elite, who feared that statehood might compromise their standing.

"The gossip in the 1950s was that statehood was opposed by Native Hawaiians and old-line haoles," Whitehead said in a phone interview from his home in Georgia. "In Statehood Commission minutes, there are mentions of gossip that taxi drivers were telling tourists that statehood was no good for Hawai'i. That was the chit chat."

Yet there is no evidence of any organized attempt by Native Hawaiians to turn the tide of public opinion regarding statehood. As Fernandez and others note, whatever dissent may have existed was typically expressed within the safety of private conversation among like-minded individuals.

Such caution, Native Hawaiian scholars argue, was bred in part from years of political and cultural oppression.

"By 1959, there were very few Hawaiians, if any, who knew that we had any rights," said Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa, professor of Hawaiian studies and former director of the Kamakakuokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies. "Beaten for speaking our language since 1896, defined as a Stone Age culture, and denigrated in a most racist manner for even having Hawaiian names, Hawaiians had been raised for three generations to believe that it was bad to be Hawaiian. Moreover, we were raised in ignorance of our human rights by the American school system."

Kame'eleihiwa said her mother, like other Native Hawaiians, did not vote in the plebiscite, partially out of fear but also as a form of resistance.

"When it came to the statehood vote, as a Hawaiian she was scared to say no, and most of her friends were, too," she said. "So she, like them, didn't vote. It was her small way of protesting. Some Hawaiians argued that we would be safer under statehood because martial law could no longer be declared. The funny thing is that my mother never felt any safer under statehood, and she was really afraid that my speaking out would get me put in jail."

CAMPBELL TESTIMONY

Then there was Alice Kamokila Campbell, daughter of sugar mogul James Campbell and the former Abigail Kuaihelani Mai-pinepine.

Campbell, a territorial senator widely regarded as the richest woman in Hawai'i, was a figure of intense local interest and her appearance before a Congressional hearing on statehood in 1949 provided one of the only public testimonies against statehood by someone of Native Hawaiian ancestry.

The hearing was orchestrated by Joseph Farrington as an opportunity to make a positive impression on undecided lawmakers back in Washington. Campbell's heartfelt, if at times confusing, testimony did nothing to help the cause. The Honolulu Record printed much of Campbell's testimony in a series of excerpts starting in January 1950.

"I naturally am jealous of (Hawaiian land) being in the hands of any alien influence," Campbell said in her introductory comments. "It took us quite a while to get used to being Americans — from a Hawaiian to an American — but I am very proud today of being an American. I don't want to be ashamed of being an American. But I think that in the last 10 years, I have lost a sense of balance here in Hawai'i as to the future safety of my land."

Campbell would go on to accuse local Japanese citizens of providing intelligence to Japan in the attack on Pearl Harbor, and criticize the "stranglehold" that Chinese and Japanese businesses had on the local economy, a condition she said made it plausible for Chinese and Japanese citizens of the territory to conspire with Russia for control of Hawai'i.

"I don't want to have a Japanese judge tell me how to act in my own country, no more than you Americans over on the other side would want an Indian to overrule you, or a Negro, which are among your American people," she testified.

Whitehead said Farrington was "humiliated" by Campbell's testimony even though the general public "didn't take her seriously."

Campbell, whose larger legacy involves her efforts to promote Hawaiian music and culture, would express shifting takes on the statehood issue over the years. However, her primary interest in protecting her native people remained constant, according to her granddaughter Mary Philpotts McGrath.

"She was opposed to statehood but her primary reason was that she felt it would further disenfranchise Hawaiian people," McGrath said.

Campbell's claim that disloyalty among certain ethnic groups in Hawai'i would jeopardize the rest of the nation should Hawai'i gain statehood was an established tactic used by "old-line haoles" who were ever cognizant of the chilling effect such suggestions would have on Mainland lawmakers.

ON COMMUNISM

Walter Dillingham, by general acknowledgement the most powerful businessman in the territory, was one of the first to posit Hawai'i's vulnerability to communism as a reason to put aside talk of statehood.

Ingram Stainback, the presidentially appointed governor of the territory from 1942 to 1951, was perhaps the most prominent anticommunist crusader in Hawai'i during his time and enjoyed the support of the leaders of the Big Five companies, who sought to discredit the territory's increasingly powerful organized labor movement.

Honolulu Advertiser publisher Lorrin Potter Thurston also was initially opposed to statehood, and he used the front page of the newspaper to reinforce fears that Hawai'i's labor unions represented an internal communist threat to the nation with his infamous "Dear Joe" letters, fake correspondence from supposed union officials to Soviet leader Joseph Stalin.

Ultimately, the various positions taken by those opposed to statehood proved no match for the mass of public opinion, which held that statehood would correct social, economic and political imbalances and allow Hawai'i residents to assert their beliefs in Congress.

Yet, while the communist trope was quickly discarded after statehood was achieved, Campbell's concern that statehood would continue the disenfranchisement of her Native Hawaiian people would prove somewhat prescient.

"The Native Hawaiian view was that while they may not have been for statehood, it was better than territorial status because haoles controlled the appointment process for the governor and judges," Whitehead said. "With democratic elections, Hawaiians could gain more power back. They felt they could achieve more through statehood than through continuing as a territory. I think it was a decade after that that they started to feel disillusionment (with statehood)."

That disillusionment would eventually lead to a dramatic re-examination of Native Hawaiian history and culture — the second Hawaiian Renaissance — which in turn would pave the way for Hawaiian sovereignty movements that today seek to redefine Hawaiian's relationship to the United States.

--------------------------

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1045/Hawaii-Statehood-Tiny-1959-opposition-was-antiJapanese-not-antiAmerican.aspx

Hawaii Free Press, Originally published August 21, 2009; republished August 21, 2010 and August 15, 2011 [presumably in honor of the Statehood Day holiday in August of each year].
** Note from Ken Conklin: I have copy/pasted the URLs visibly for some of the links hidden behind words in Andrew Walden's article.

By Andrew Walden

Citing 50-year-old “gossip” as its source, The Honolulu Advertiser August 9 tries to convince readers that, “the main opposition to statehood was posed by Native Hawaiians still stinging from the illegal overthrow of their monarchy and the subsequent annexation of Hawai'i by the United States, and by the territory's white elite, who feared that statehood might compromise their standing.”

In reality the miniscule 6% opposition to Statehood in 1959
http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/documents/HawaiiStateHoodVote.pdf
was motivated by a fear of elections. Opponents preferred to continue with a Territorial government consisting of officials appointed by Washington rather than a State government elected by voters who were heavily Japanese-American and heavily tied to plantation labor. Opponents of Statehood were landed aristocracy fearful of being ruled by their employees.

There is no continuity between the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, 20th century opposition to Statehood, and the modern Gramscian construct known as the “Sovereignty Movement.” Hawaiians embraced the United States in 1902 when Prince Jonah Kuhio, heir to Liliuokalani, abandoned Robert Wilcox’ Home Rule Party,
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/580/Prince-Kuhio-The-bridge-from-Kingdom-to-State.aspx
joined the Republican Party and was elected Territorial delegate. In 1903 the Hawaiian-Republican territorial legislature passed its first pro-Statehood resolution. In 1919, Rep Kuhio presented the first Hawaii Statehood bill to Congress.

The modern “Sovereignty Movement” is the product of the late 1960s-early 1970s campus Marxist upsurge. Its origins at Kalama Valley are directly tied to the activities of Vietnam-era radicals at UH Manoa. (This will be the subject of a future article.)

Even the Advertiser is forced to admit that, “there is no evidence of any organized attempt by Native Hawaiians to turn the tide of public opinion regarding statehood.” In spite of this, the Advertiser’s August 9 article is misleadingly titled, “Hawaii’s move into Statehood traumatic for many Hawaiians.” The entire so-called trauma is a post-1970 development.

Advertiser writer Michael Tsai cites the 1949 testimony of Alice Kamokila Campbell before the US Senate as a rare example “of the only public testimonies against statehood by someone of Native Hawaiian ancestry.”

Tsai falsely presents Campbell’s testimony as a counterpoint to the attitudes of the pro-Statehood 1940s and 1950s Hawaiians described as “raised in ignorance” by UH Hawaiian Studies Prof. Lilikala Kame`eleihiwa. Tsai even adulterates an out-of-context quote from Campbell to make it appear as if Campbell’s opposition to Statehood had something to do with the loss of “Hawaiian land.”

As a Territory the Hawaii Territorial Governor and Territorial judges were appointed from Washington. If Hawaii achieved Statehood, the Governor would be elected locally and judges would be appointed by locally elected Governor and legislature. Worse yet, depending on how the state constitution was written, judges could even have been elected.

Campbell was in no way speaking as a representative of Hawaiians “traumatized” by the overthrow of their Kingdom 50-plus years earlier. On the contrary, her testimony discusses how Hawaiians came to terms with becoming American. (Another excellent look at evolving Hawaiian attitudes, from the Kingdom, to the Republic, Territory, and State, comes in Bob Krauss’ 1994 book: “Johnny Wilson, First Hawaiian Democrat.”)
http://books.google.com/books?id=mBYfPPI0XYYC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=&f=false

She was speaking as a large Campbell estate landowner who was afraid of living under the rule of an elected State government controlled by plantation workers. She expressed her fears in numerous public statements over a period of at least 10 years. Her line was anti-Communist. She questioned the loyalty of the Japanese and Chinese in Hawaii. Campbell’s 1949 testimony even questioned the loyalty of AJA WW2 soldiers serving in the 442nd Infantry.

Tsai adds the words “Hawaiian land” to produce this doctored, out-of-context 1949 Campbell quote:

“I naturally am jealous of (Hawaiian land) being in the hands of any alien influence. It took us quite a while to get used to being Americans — from a Hawaiian to an American — but I am very proud today of being an American. I don’t want to be ashamed of being an American. But I think that in the last 10 years, I have lost a sense of balance here in Hawai’i as to the future safety of my land.”

In context, here is what Campbell actually said:

Mrs. Campbell. First I will give it to you from the standpoint of a Hawaiian, the land being the land of my people. I naturally am jealous of it being in the hands of any alien influence. It took us quite a while to get used to being Americans—from a Hawaiian to an American—but I am very proud today of being an American. I don’t want ever to feel that I am ashamed of being an American. But I think that in the past 10 years I have lost a sense of balance here in Hawaii as to the future safety of my land. This un-American influence has come into our country, and even in the report of the Governor you will see where he says one-third of the population are Japanese. If we are a State they would have the power to vote and they would use every exertion to see that every vote was counted, if we become a State. As it is now, I feel the confidence and I feel the sincerity of Congress, and know they are not going to forsake us.

Now there are two things that I have been thinking of. What could make the average American in his own land afraid to speak? It is a very unnatural thing.

First there is the purchasing power of the Chinese and the Japanese combination in this country. The outsider coming in says “Oh no; the Chinese hate the Japs and the Japs hate the Chinese.” Don’t you believe it, Senator Cordon. The Chinese and Japanese are so tied up together in this community that if we ever went to war they would have a stranglehold on us. We cannot afford to talk. We cannot afford to talk to Russia, is what I claim today, because of that situation. Those for statehood come forward; those who are not for statehood won’t make their statements showing where they stand.

Who supplies our fish? The Japanese. Who do they sell to? The Chinese storeman. Who supplies our chicken and eggs? The Japanese. Who do they sell to? The Chinese—Chun Hoon, C. Q. Yee Hop. Who supplies our pork? This is a pork-eating country. The Japanese. Who do they sell to? C. Q. Yee Hop who is a wholesale man, and that combination goes on and on and on. I say Russia could afford to say—and I should take a chance as one born here in Hawaii—to have Russia say, “All right, you Chinese and Japanese, you come and fight for us. We will give you the Territory of Hawaii.” Should I take these chances of giving my land up and permitting Russia for one minute to do it? We don’t know where Russia stands. Russia does not want this Territory. Russia is out to get Europe. Congress knows that. I know it. I am not hiding it. If it was any other nationality I would have to say the same thing; that we must be careful. I don’t want to have a Japanese judge tell me how to act in my own country, no more than you Americans over on the other side would want an Indian to overrule you, or a Negro, which are among your American people.

Quoted in the Advertiser, UH Hawaiian Studies Chair Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa (who legally changed her name from Lilikala L. Dorton) alternately insults 1950s-era Hawaiians and on the other hand invents non-existent resistance. She tells the Advertiser that 1959 Hawaiians did not know “we had any rights” and were “raised in ignorance.” On the other hand, like so many other sovereignty activists, she claims her mother, “as a Hawaiian she was scared to say no, and most of her friends were, too. So she, like them, didn't vote. It was her small way of protesting.”

In contrast to Kame`eleihiwa’s unverifiable claims, the contemporary account of the angry reaction Campbell's anti-Japanese sentiments received from her pro-Statehood Democratic colleagues shows vigorous pro-Statehood advocacy by ancestors of several of today’s prominent Hawaiian leaders.

After Campbell publicly made anti-Japanese and anti-Chinese remarks at an October 30, 1944 Democratic campaign rally, the Honolulu Advertiser November 2, 1944 reports that Hawaii Democratic Chair William H Heen and Democrat Senator David K Trask physically prevented Campbell from speaking at a Democratic campaign rally at Kamamalu park November 1.

Campbell refused pressure to resign as Democratic National Committeewoman. Campbell told the Star-Bulletin November 2, 1944, “they to put that other woman (Victoria Holt) in there.”

These names should be familiar as the grandfather of current OHA Vice-Chair Walter M. Heen, the grandfather of Mililani and Haunani Trask and a relative of Victoria Holt Takamine.
http://archives.starbulletin.com/2000/09/16/editorial/shapiro.html

But that’s not all. Hawaiians rejected Campbell’s rhetoric. The Honolulu Record, December 29, 1949 describes results of the Kalawahine-Kewalo Hawaiian Homestead election as “a slap at Alice Kamokila Campbell, recent appointee of Governor Stainback to the Hawaiian Homes Commission.” Anti-Campbell election winners included some with familiar family names such as Albert K Stender, Mrs. Elizabeth H Stender, and Mrs. Helen Kanahele.

This is what happens when a paper trail exists. Like UFO sightings, or claims that President Obama was born in Kenya, sovereignty activists’ stories about their parents’ opposition to Statehood are always unverifiable—yet the Advertiser, August 9, elects to highlight several such stories.

Sovereignty activists are fond of pointing to the 1897-98 anti-Annexation petitions signed by thousands of Hawaiians. But on February 24, 1954 a 250 lb. petition containing 120,000 Hawaii signatures in favor of Statehood was sent to Congress.
http://hawaii.gov/statehood/history
[Ken Conklin's note: See "Hawaii Great Statehood Petition of 1954 -- 120,000 Signatures Gathered in 2 Weeks On a Petition for Statehood for Hawaii" at
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/statehoodpetition1954.html

This reporter wonders whose grandparents and parents signed that petition. Given the fact that the district including Molokai voted 97% for Statehood in 1959, and the vote was 94% for Statehood overall, many of the unverifiable claims by activists are simply not credible.

Tsai argues that only “35 percent of all eligible voters” backed Statehood in the 1959 referendum. The 1959 referendum turnout of 140,000 was then the highest turnout ever in a Hawaii election. To imply that this throws into doubt the broad support for Statehood in 1959 falsely presumes that many eligible voters who did not cast a ballot was against Statehood. In fact there were large spontaneous celebrations of Statehood throughout the islands and by Hawaiians on the mainland as well.

Former Big Island Mayor Lorraine Inouye explains to the Hawaii Tribune-Herald:

“It was very exciting. There was just that excitement in the air. I went down to (Hilo) town, and that was pretty much a year before the tidal wave. People who had heard the news were honking their horns and kissing each other in celebration. Just a great, great feeling. I've lived through the territory days. We were very fortunate just to be part of the United States."

In contrast to Tsai’s description, there is zero evidence that the 6% opposition in the 1959 referendum was based on “trauma” left over from the 1893 overthrow. Campbell's public opposition had to do with being a landed aristocrat fearful of facing a government elected by her employees and tenants.

Even Kekuni Blaisdell and Chris Conybeare’s anti-Statehood propaganda site www.StatehoodHawaii.org points out, “the district that registered the most ‘no’ votes came from the more affluent and Caucasian dominated Diamond Head/Kahala district.” (In Oahu’s 17th Dist, the vote was 8.3% against Statehood.) This result is completely in line with the fears expressed in Campbell’s 1949 anti-Japanese pro-Territory testimony. As for Campbell herself, on November 25, 1956 she wrote a letter to the editor of the Advertiser arguing that no more Congressional investigations of "communism" were needed in Hawaii. After the March 18, 1959 signing by President Eisenhower of the Hawaii Admission Act, she told reporters, “I have always been opposed to statehood, but now it is here and many of my friends like it, I shall try to like it too."

Tsai points out that, “The only precinct to reject the invitation was Ni'ihau, the restricted island whose population is almost entirely Native Hawaiian.”

Given the results from Molokai’s heavily Hawaiian district, where only 75 people voted against Statehood, it cannot be claimed that the Niihau vote was a reflection of Hawaiian anti-American or pro-Monarchy sentiment. More likely it was a reflection of the same anti-Japanese attitudes expressed by Campbell.

Niihau had been the site of a December, 1941 incident where a downed Japanese fighter pilot from the Pearl Harbor attack force was spontaneously aided by a Japanese-American employee of the Robinson family (owners of Niihau) in holding the entire island’s population at gunpoint for two weeks. Niihauan Beni Kanahele, eventually freed the island by killing the pilot after being shot three times. He was immortalized in the song: “They couldn’t take Niihau no how.”
http://groups.google.com/group/can.schoolnet.history/browse_thread/thread/e786c3b06612d89d

Such an incident may have caused Niihauans to share some of Campbell’s fears 18 years later. Their vote may also have reflected the attitude of the island's owners.

Campbell explained her views in 1949:

Mrs. Campbell. Why, any more than I should keep saying “I am an American of Hawaiian ancestry.” Who cares? Another American only wants to know “Are you an American?” I am an American “period.” My Hawaiian ancestry does not mean a thing. It is: What am I today? An American. I may be wrong, Senator, but I don’t like having them ram down my throat all the time “I am an American of Japanese ancestry, “ trying to make me feel that they went away with the Four Hundred and Forty-second or the One Hundredth Battalion—they went away to fight for a foreign country because they were Japanese? No. Why don’t they say “We went away to fight for our country”? It is always, “Americans of Japanese ancestry.” Why? Because they want the praise of the Japanese—fighting for your country and my country. I can’t see it. I am too much of an American. I am an American “period.” That is all I know. And that is why I may be a little bit bitter down here, when they try to ram down my throat “Japanese.”

No one but those who were here in Hawaii, and lived in Hawaii, as I do, will ever forget December 7. Who was it that brought on that attack of December 7? The people who were here, right here in this country, whom I thought were loyal to my country. I thought they were Americans. They gave out the information to their own people in Japan. Blood is thicker than water. That is my contention. I cannot help it. I am basing a lot of these things on that. I am interested in the safety of Hawaii; in the safety of the people. It includes the Japanese too, but it is Hawaii first, last, and always in my heart, and I will fight and fight for that. Who wants Hawaii to be a State? They cater to the Japanese. Why? Because the Japanese vote is what everyone wants.

Under the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Hawaii Republic, Asian laborers were brought to Hawaii under terms of indentured servitude—semi-slavery—to serve the profit needs of the Hawaiian and Haole landowners. Conditions on Hawaii’s sugar plantations were often compared unfavorably to the treatment of black slaves in the antebellum US South. It was only with the adoption of American law under the 1900 Organic Act that semi-slavery was abolished in Hawaii.

Sovereignty activist Kekuni Blaisdell describes the Act which abolished semi-slavery thusly: “for us Kanaka, the subsequent 1900 U.S.-imposed Organic Act, spelled official U.S. domination, subjugation and exploitation.”

In 2008 the UH Manoa Ethnic Studies published a book of Trask-sister scribblings titled, “Asian Settler Colonialism: From local governance to the habits of everyday life in Hawai`i.” This writer is unable to find any other example of other cultural nationalist movements anywhere characterizing slaves, semi-slaves, or their descendants as “colonial settlers”.
** Ken Conklin's note: See a major book review of "Asian Settler Colonialism" at
http://www.angelfire.com/big09a/AsianSettlerColonialism.html

But perhaps the lesson is that the modern sovereignty activists are just as reactionary, and erratic as Alice Campbell. They both represent thin elite groups seeking to rule over and exploit the general public: Campbell, by virtue of her land ownership, in alliance with the US with Hawaii as a Territory -- The “sovereignty movement”, by virtue of their purportedly greater “consciousness”, in alliance with the US with Hawaiians as a Tribe.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

---30---

[Footnotes by Andrew Walden]

Newsreel footage of 1959 Statehood Celebrations
http://www.archive.org/details/1959-03-16_Aloha_Hawaii

Results of 1959 Statehood Referendum
http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/documents/HawaiiStateHoodVote.pdf

Honolulu Record V2 #23-24-25 has excerpts from Campbell's testimony:
http://www.hawaii.edu/uhwo/clear/HonoluluRecord1/volume2.html

Book Kodomo Tame Ni has excerpts of Campbell testimony (pp 397-401):
http://books.google.com/books?id=EYewUv20s7AC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false

RELATED:

Prince Kuhio: The bridge from Kingdom to State
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/580/Prince-Kuhio-The-bridge-from-Kingdom-to-State.aspx

Our American Triumph: Civil Rights and Hawaii Statehood
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/320/Our-American-Triumph-Civil-Rights-and-Hawaii-Statehood.aspx

The Frank Marshall Davis Network in Hawaii
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-frank-marshall-davis-network-in-hawaii

Akaka Bill Reading List
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/316/Akaka-Bill-Reading-List.aspx

Barack Obama Reading list
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/81/Barack-Obama-Reading-List.aspx

Antonio Gramsci Reading List
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Main/LinkClick.aspx?link=http%3a%2f%2fwww.hawaiifreepress.com%2fmain%2fArticlesMain%2ftabid%2f56%2farticleType%2fArticleView%2farticleId%2f1038%2fAntonio-Gramsci-Reading-List.aspx&tabid=56&mid=349

STATEMENTS OF Sen Alice Kamokila Campbell

Star-Bulletin 11-2-1944

“Here Is Statement Sen. Campbell Tried To Give At Democratic Rally”

Mr. Chairman, guests of the Democratic Party, aloha:

I am a holdover senator and national Democratic committeewoman for Hawaii. Yesterday (Tuesday) afternoon I was notified that I have been muzzled and forbidden to speak tonight on behalf of my party, so I will speak as a voter, a taxpayer, a Democrat who believes in the kind of democracy our men are fighting for on all battlefronts, and as a 100 per cent American.

When I say I have worked and tried to gain for Hawaii 100 per cent Americanism, I speak from my heart.

What I am to say tonight is still 100 per cent Americanism and I do not need anybody to apologize for any statements I have made or will make.

In telling the truth unflatteringly, on October 30 at Lanakila park the Americans in Japanese and Chinese groups resented some of my statements and, as the expression goes, “are up in arms.” Why?

I ask all real Americans, is this territory an integral part of Japan, China or America? It is high time we find out.

A man or woman voting as an American does not need to be forced or bought; he votes or should vote for the candidate, in his estimation, who is best qualified for the position regardless of race color or creed.

We are in war today as Americans fighting desperately for freedom and democracy and for that reason I owe my allegiance to America and everyone privileged to be born in this great country and not to one man political control or any particular group control.

We have been fighting this bitter war for nearly three years to preserve what—the four freedoms as our own great president Franklin Delano Roosevelt has reminded us, one of which is freedom of speech.

I have been threatened that if I run for reelection two years hence they will kill me politically. What care I? I have gotten all the fun and headaches that go with local politics, and anyone who wants to succeed me is welcome to the job.

Men, women and even children you owe it to God, your country and to yourselves to be fearless Americans, all American. Hawaii needs loyalty today and far into the future—give her the kind of loyalty that only a real American knows. I thank you. Goodnight.

*****

Statement of Mrs. Alice Kamokila Campbell Congressional Testimony, January 17, 1946

Mrs. Campbell. Now I don’t know, Senator, just what you wanted to see me for. I am here to answer any questions.

Senator Cordon. Mrs Campbell, I want your views on the advisability of the enactment by Congress of the pending bill granting statehood to the Territory of Hawaii. I have understood that you are opposed to passage of legislation at this time. I am interested in the reasons which bring you to that contention.

Mrs. Campbell. First I will give it to you from the standpoint of a Hawaiian, the land being the land of my people. I naturally am jealous of it being in the hands of any alien influence. It took us quite a while to get used to being Americans—from a Hawaiian to an American—but I am very proud today of being an American. I don’t want ever to feel that I am ashamed of being an American. But I think that in the past 10 years I have lost a sense of balance here in Hawaii as to the future safety of my land. This un-American influence has come into our country, and even in the report of the Governor you will see where he says one-third of the population are Japanese. If we are a State they would have the power to vote and they would use every exertion to see that every vote was counted, if we become a State. As it is now, I feel the confidence and I feel the sincerity of Congress, and know they are not going to forsake us.

Now there are two things that I have been thinking of. What could make the average American in his own land afraid to speak? It is a very unnatural thing.

First there is the purchasing power of the Chinese and the Japanese combination in this country. The outsider coming in says “Oh no; the Chinese hate the Japs and the Japs hate the Chinese.” Don’t you believe it, Senator Cordon. The Chinese and Japanese are so tied up together in this community that if we ever went to war they would have a stranglehold on us. We cannot afford to talk. We cannot afford to talk to Russia, is what I claim today, because of that situation. Those for statehood come forward; those who are not for statehood won’t make their statements showing where they stand.

Who supplies our fish? The Japanese. Who do they sell to? The Chinese storeman. Who supplies our chicken and eggs? The Japanese. Who do they sell to? The Chinese—Chun Hoon, C. Q. Yee Hop. Who supplies our pork? This is a pork-eating country. The Japanese. Who do they sell to? C. Q. Yee Hop who is a wholesale man, and that combination goes on and on and on. I say Russia could afford to say—and I should take a chance as one born here in Hawaii—to have Russia say, “All right, you Chinese and Japanese, you come and fight for us. We will give you the Territory of Hawaii.” Should I take these chances of giving my land up and permitting Russia for one minute to do it? We don’t know where Russia stands. Russia does not want this Territory. Russia is out to get Europe. Congress knows that. I know it. I am not hiding it. If it was any other nationality I would have to say the same thing; that we must be careful. I don’t want to have a Japanese judge tell me how to act in my own country, no more than you Americans over on the other side would want an Indian to overrule you, or a Negro, which are among your American people.

Senator Cordon. We have judges of both.

Mrs Campbell. I know, but it is not racial prejudice with me. There is still a very bitter feeling; there is still a very great racial feeling there on the mainland, because when I went on a trip the Negroes were all put in one car; the Negroes were set aside, and yet they are Americans.

The Japanese are not my people. The Chinese are not my people. The Caucasians, yes, and by adoption it makes me an American, and I am proud to be an American, and as an American I don’t want to see an unhealthy condition here in these islands. It is an unhealthy condition. We are not safe when in an American country one-third of the population are Japanese. The Governor himself says that in his report, at which I was surprised—one third, in an American country. I cannot see it. I am too much an American, Senator, to see anything but Americans here.

(following section not included in Kodomo No Tame Ni, but included in Honolulu record V2, No 24.)
http://www.hawaii.edu/uhwo/clear/HonoluluRecord1/volume2.html

Why has all this Communism come into our country?

Senator Cordon. Has it?

Mrs. Campbell. It has come in, and it is coming from the Japanese, because they cannot get enough land to live on. This is what started communism in Russia. We know that. It is the peasant having his own little holdings to live on and to take care of and who knew that that was his. Russia would not have had communism otherwise, nor been in the state of affairs it is there. Communism has come in, and I am afraid of what the situation will be in a couple of years when the Caucasians—those who have come here to help out during wartime—when they start going home, and they are going home fast, Senator, and they want to go home fast; they want to get out of this place.

(This section included in Kodomo No Tame Ni, but not in Honolulu Record)

Senator Cordon. Mrs Campbell, let me ask you for your judgment as to the extent to which the native-born American, and that is what he is, in the islands, of Japanese extraction, has foresworn the Government and the ways of his ancestors, and adopted those of his native country--America.

Mrs. Campbell. Yes.

Senator Cordon. What is your judgment as to whether he has done that or hasn’t?

Mrs. Campbell. I would say a lot of them, maybe a great majority, have taken on American ways. Why shouldn’t they?

Senator Cordon. Well, they should.

Mrs. Campbell. They are American people.

Senator Cordon. But I seek to determine whether they have. I don’t mean as a cloak.

Mrs. Campbell. No, no.

Senator Cordon. Mrs. Campbell, I mean as an existing fact, in respect to their lives and beliefs.

(This section included in both sources.)

Mrs. Campbell. Is say a great many—in fairness to the Japanese, I say they have taken on the form of Americanism, and as to those, I am proud of them; but I say “but”—because this is a great “but”—why do they keep insisting and emphasizing to an American that they are of Japanese ancestry? Why don’t they drop it? Isn’t it enough to say that “I am an American”, and have us all understand that they are American “period.” But when they try to keep saying “of Japanese ancestry”; “of Japanese ancestry,” why do they do it? Why do they want to bring up the Japanese ancestry?

Senator Cordon. Perhaps because my dad, who was born in England, ‘til the date of his death loved roast beef.

Mrs. Campbell. Why, any more than I should keep saying “I am an American of Hawaiian ancestry.” Who cares? Another American only wants to know “Are you an American?” I am an American “period.” My Hawaiian ancestry does not mean a thing. It is: What am I today? An American. I may be wrong, Senator, but I don’t like having them ram down my throat all the time “I am an American of Japanese ancestry, “ trying to make me feel that they went away with the Four Hundred and Forty-second or the One Hundredth Battalion—they went away to fight for a foreign country because they were Japanese? No. Why don’t they say “We went away to fight for our country”? It is always, “Americans of Japanese ancestry.” Why? Because they want the praise of the Japanese—fighting for your country and my country. I can’t see it. I am too much of an American. I am an American “period.” That is all I know. And that is why I may be a little bit bitter down here, when they try to ram down my throat “Japanese.”

No one but those who were here in Hawaii, and lived in Hawaii, as I do, will ever forget December 7. Who was it that brought on that attack of December 7? The people who were here, right here in this country, whom I thought were loyal to my country. I thought they were Americans. They gave out the information to their own people in Japan. Blood is thicker than water. That is my contention. I cannot help it. I am basing a lot of these things on that. I am interested in the safety of Hawaii; in the safety of the people. It includes the Japanese too, but it is Hawaii first, last, and always in my heart, and I will fight and fight for that. Who wants Hawaii to be a State? They cater to the Japanese. Why? Because the Japanese vote is what everyone wants.

(Honolulu Record concludes here, Kodomo No Tame Ni continues, possibly with ellipsis.)

* * *

Mrs. Campbell. …That is the sad part about Hawaii today. There are many things that are not right. I was born here. It was through my interest as a representative family, and a member of a representative family of Hawaii, to watch the trend of the people that were permitted to come into this country, and I have watched it without prejudice. I have Japanese servants. I have a servant who has been with me—a Japanese, an alien—for 42 years, and that woman is still with me. I don’t hate her because she is an alien, because she is Japanese. No, I don’t even suspect her, but it is not of the generation we have to watch.

Senator Cordon. You mean the new?

Mrs. Campbell. The new generation. They say they are the third and fourth generations. They are the first and second, if the truth were known, because the first generation to me is one that the alien parents; that is the first generation. You never hear of the issei; you hear of the nisei, which makes a generation in between; the nisei is the second generation. That is all you hear about, the nisei, the nisei, but no, it is the issei that I am after. They are misrepresenting them….

(Balance of testimony not yet retrieved. This will be updated when the balance of testimony becomes available.)


=========

SEE A COLLECTION OF DIALOGS ABOUT THE AKAKA BILL, AND RACISM

or

SEE MORE WEBPAGES ABOUT HAWAIIAN SOVEREIGNTY ISSUES

Send comments or questions to:
Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com