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

Were non-kanaka maoli historically full partners in Hawai'i, or only second-class guests?


(c) Copyright 2000 - 2006 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved


Sovereignty activists are fond of saying that Hawai'i properly belongs to kanaka maoli; and that non-kanaka maoli are guests. They say that after the arrival of Captain Cook in 1778, foreigners were welcomed as guests, and given the privileges of living and working in the kanaka maoli homeland. But the houseguests then invited more houseguests, and have now illegally taken over the house, and pushed the rightful owners into a basement apartment, or even into a tent in the backyard. The activists say that it is time for kanaka maoli to show the court their deed to the house, call in the police, and re-establish their rightful control of the house they have always owned. The true owners then have the right to take over the entire house, kick out unwanted guests, and to set the rules governing which guests may live in which rooms and how much rent they must pay. Here's a webpage that provides the analogy of the stolen house (and a mutation of it, the analogy of the stolen car) and includes a corrected version of the analogy.
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/stolenhousecar.html

There is also an important argument based on the old Hawaiian religion, to the effect that the gods, the native Hawaiians, and the land itself are all related as members of a family; while anyone without Hawaiian ancestry is an outsider. Thus, ethnic Hawaiians would be entitled to exercise race-based sovereignty in Hawai'i. To read about this complex theory, see:
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/religion.html

Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa, tenured professor and former Chair of the Center for Hawaiian Studies at the University of Hawai'i flagship campus at Manoa, discusses the concept of hosts vs. guests in her book "Native Land and Foreign Desires" (Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press, 1992). She uses the term "foreigner" to refer to anyone who lacks Hawaiian native ancestry; thus, even a Caucasian or Asian person whose family has been born and raised in Hawai'i for many generations spanning 200 years would be called a "foreigner." Here's what she says, starting at page 325:

"Foreigners must learn to behave as guests in our aina and give respect to the Native people. If foreigners cannot find it in their hearts to do this, they should leave Hawaii…. If foreigners truly love Hawaiians they must support Hawaiian sovereignty. They must be humble and learn to serve Hawaiians … If foreigners love us and want to support our political movements they must never take leadership roles. Leadership must be left to [ethnic] Hawaiians, for we can never learn to lead our Lahui [race-based nation] again until we do it ourselves. Foreigners who love us can donate their land and money into a trust fund for Hawaiian economic self-sufficiency, to promote agriculture, aquaculture, fishing and the Native initiative for sovereignty."

But it is incorrect to use an analogy of a guest who has no moral or legal standing. Two analogies will be offered here, which are much more appropriate. First, a little history about the role of non-kanaka maoli during the period from Captain Cook's arrival in 1778 until the overthrow and annexation of the 1890s.

During the 1780s there were an increasing number of European ships arriving in Hawai'i. The crews traded metal and weapons for the food and fresh water they needed. (Metal was virtually non-existent in Hawai'i prior to the arrival of Captain Cook) As trade increased, kanaka maoli were delighted to obtain European goods, and Kamehameha was delighted to acquire increasingly sophisticated weapons he could use in his wars against other chiefs.

In 1790, an incident occurred that resulted in Kamehameha acquiring an entire ship, complete with a cannon and two sailors knowledgeable in weaponry and military tactics. At first the sailors, John Young and Isaac Davis, were held as captives and forced to help Kamehameha. But as time went by, they were highly rewarded for their work, and were adopted into Kamehameha's family, given the status of chiefs, given houses and land, and married into the family. John Young's grave is in Mauna Ala, the Royal Mausoleum on Nu'uano Avenue in Honolulu where all the monarchs are buried except for Kamehameha the Great and King Lunalilo. His grave, next to the chapel, is marked by a very large flat raised stone platform resembling a heiau, with a pair of pulo'ulo'u (sacred kapu sticks) guarding it.

John Young's half-Hawaiian son became tutor and caretaker for Kamehameha's son Kauikeaouli, who later became King Kamehameha III. One of Young's granddaughters was Queen Emma, wife of Alexander Liholiho Kamehameha IV. Kamehameha's major victories at 'Iao Valley on Maui, and the Battle of Nu'uanu Pali on O'ahu, were in large part due to the military advice of Davis and Young; and the use of the cannon, the guns, and metal knives and spear points acquired from Europeans. These battles were decisive in establishing Kamehameha's control over Maui and O'ahu. And the fact that thousands of his enemies were killed in these battles, and he used Western technology and Western advisors to build a huge fleet of warships threatening to attack Kaua'i, helped intimidate King Kaumuali'i of Kaua'i into "peacefully" acknowledging Kamehameha as King of all the islands.

Once Kamehameha was undisputed King of all the Hawaiian Islands, he continued to welcome foreigners to live in Hawai'i, and to establish businesses here. He freely chose to assign thousands of kanaka maoli to harvest sandalwood to trade for more European goods for himself. As time went by, Europeans and Americans played an increasing role in the government of the islands, first as advisors, then as cabinet members and appointed and elected government officials under the various Western-style constitutions proclaimed by the kings. See the section on self-determination in this website for further information about the historical role of non-kanaka maoli.

It is important to understand that non-kanaka maoli were full partners in the Kingdom. One reason this is important is because kanaka maoli today are claiming that the United States owes them land, money, and power as reparations for the minor U.S. role in overthrowing the monarchy in 1893. But since the Kingdom was not primarily a kanaka maoli nation in 1893, any reparations would be owed to all descendants of the people living in the Kingdom prior to then. Native Hawaiians made up only 40% of the population at the time of the overthrow in 1893, 26% at the time of annexation in 1900, and perhaps 20% today. Source: Robert C. Schmitt. Demographic Statistics of Hawaii: 1778-1965. (Honolulu, 1968) The first U.S. Census was in 1900 and it showed a total population of154,001 of whom 29,779 were Hawaiian, 7,857 were part-Hawaiian, 28,819 Caucasian, 25,767 Chinese, 61,111 Japanese.

All persons born in Hawaii during the Kingdom were subjects (i.e. citizens) of the Kingdom by birth, and had all the same rights as Native Hawaiians. This is first provided for as far back as the 1846 Statute Laws of Kamehameha III, Vol. I, p. 76, sec. III. In 1850 the legal advisor to the Government, Asher Bates (apparently an acting or deputy Attorney General) rendered a formal opinion that persons born in the Kingdon of foreign parents were subjects of the Kingdom with all the rights of a subject. Maud Jones, Naturalization in Hawaii (1934). (This is a monograph which can be found in the State of Hawai'i Archives; it summarizes all the laws of the Kingdom and Republic regarding naturalization). In 1856, the Kingdom of Hawai'i Supreme Court decided (Naone v. Thurston, 1 Haw. 220 (1856)), a case explicitly confirming that locally-born children of foreign residents were subjects of the Kingdom. The Thurston mentioned in the name of the case was Asa Thurston, Lorrin's father, who challenged a law that required foreigners to pay $5 extra a year to educate their children in English language schools. The court's statement of the facts shows that the junior Thurstons, born in Hawaii, were subjects of the Kingdom.

Another example is helpful to show that persons born in the Kingdom were thereby subjects of the Kingdom. After Hawaii became a territory, and all citizens of the Republic became citizens of the US, a Chinese man named Ching Tai Sai arrived in Honolulu from China, claiming to be an American citizen even though he had never before entered America and his parents had been Chinese subjects. In US v. Ching Tai Sai, 1 US Dist. Ct. Haw. 118 (1901), the court held he was an American because (1) he had been born in Hawaii during the monarchy; so (2) he had been a Hawaiian citizen; so (3) he became an American citizen.

Sanford B. Dole should be mentioned here. He is an outstanding example of a non-native who was born a subject of the Kingdom and who was a full partner. Dole's parents were both citizens of the United States, who came to Hawai'i and never became naturalized, always retaining their U.S. citizenship. Sanford was born at Punahou (Honolulu) in 1844 as a native-born Hawaiian subject, who never felt any need to undergo naturalization. He grew up Hawaiian style, spoke Hawaiian fluently, mastered Hawaiian games and sports, and most of his playmates were Hawaiians. He mingled freely in the royal court. He adopted a Hawaiian girl who was probably his biological daughter. He eventually was elected to the Kingdom Legislature from an overwhelmingly native district on Kaua'i, and he was appointed by King Kalakaua to be a Justice of the Supreme Court. He exercised his rights as a Hawaiian subject to influence the destiny of his nation, helping to overthrow the monarchy. And then he served as President of the Provisional Government and the Republic of Hawai'i, an independent nation that survived for 5 years after the overthrow until annexation. For a biography of Sanford B. Dole, see:
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/dole.html

The first Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawai'i, given by Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III in 1840, provided full and equal voting rights to all subjects of the kingdom on an equal basis regardless of race. The Great Mahele, started in 1848, provided full and equal property rights to all subjects of the Kingdom, regardless of race. Later during the Kingdom, residents who were not subjects were given the right to own property. And later, but still during the Kingdom and before the Bayonet Constitution, even non-resident foreigners were able to own land in fee simple.

Some Asian immigrants became naturalized subjects of the Kingdom. Although many Asian contract laborers were not allowed to become fully entitled subjects of the Kingdom, their blood, sweat, and tears made the sugar plantations successful, which provided the tax dollars to build 'Iolani Palace, Ali'iolani Hale, and the other governmental buildings and infrastructure; and supported the lavish lifestyles of King Kalakaua and Queen Lili'uokalani. Visitors to the Palace today can see a glimmer of that lavish lifestyle. King Kalakaua was the first monarch in world history to circumnavigate the globe, and he did so by sailing on a sea of Asian sweat.

If descendants of Native Hawaiian inhabitants of 1893 are entitled to anything (as the Akaka bill claims), the descendants of those productive Asian workers are entitled to at least their full share, along with the descendants of the white government officials and business leaders whose expertise and capital investment helped the Kingdom to prosper. Indeed, the fact that the Asians were unfairly treated, but nevertheless worked productively, is all the more reason to give their descendants at least as much as the descendants of those who received the benefits of that productivity. The premise of the Akaka bill, to give benefits to only one race of descendants of Kingdom residents as of a certain date, is morally and logically bankrupt. And of course, it is repugnant to the Constitution under which we live, which guarantees each individual the equal protection of the laws without regard to race or ancestry.

Thus it is very important to understand that thousands of people in the Kingdom of Hawai'i who were not Native Hawaiians were full partners in the Kingdom, with full political and economic rights. All these people, and their descendants, must be treated the same as Native Hawaiians if there are to be any reparations from the United States for the 1893 overthrow of the monarchy. The singling out of Native Hawaiians in the Akaka bill, to be sole recipients of such reparations, is blatant racism.

It is clear that non-KM were not merely guests in the KM house. They were equal partners. They were welcomed as family members in full standing, and were primarily responsible for the creation of a written language, constitutional government, and economic prosperity. And all of these accomplishments were done under sovereign kings of Hawai'i who freely chose to take the nation in these directions.

One reasonable analogy is the traditional kanaka maoli custom of hanai, whereby a family adopts a child given by someone else, and raises it as a family member. This custom has existed for centuries, and is common throughout all of Polynesia. No written records were necessary (indeed, in old Hawai'i there was no writing!). The adoption was fully binding, and the newcomer became a full and equal family member, participating in privileges and responsibilities on the same basis as children born into the family. John Young and Isaac Davis were hanai into Kamehameha's family. Europeans and Americans, and to a lesser extent Chinese and Japanese and other Asians, were taken into the Kingdom of Hawai'i as citizens with full and equal rights to vote and own property, until eventually non-kanaka maoli comprised 74% of population and half the citizenry. Imagine a kanaka maoli family which uses hanai to bring in many non-kanaka maoli family members. Then imagine that five generations go by during a period of a century, and the hanai members have children, and additional hanai takes place, until eventually three-fourths of the family members have no kanaka maoli blood. Meanwhile, there have been many additions built onto the ancestral house, and many more houses have been built on the ancestral land. The family has grown and prospered. Then comes a time when the family begins making choices which the minority kanaka maoli members do not like. The kanaka maoli members start claiming that all the family lands and houses rightfully belong to them alone, and the non-kanaka maoli members have no rightful standing in the family. But in the tradition of hanai, all family members have equal standing, especially after several generations have gone by and most of the kupuna (elders) are now non-kanaka maoli.

Another analogy would be a company operated as a partnership. Two original founding partners establish a company, whose limited success is based primarily on hard work but little capital. As time goes by, they want the company to grow and prosper. Over time they bring in eight new partners who are given equal partnerships in exchange for large amounts of capital investment and great technical expertise. As a century goes by, the company grows and prospers. The descendants of the founding partners now have 20% of the stock in the company, while the descendants of the new partners, and others who have bought shares of stock, now have 80% control. The majority decides to replace the chief executive officer and change the way the company does business. But the descendants of the founding partners say this is illegal. They claim that their 20% of the shares should be the only voting shares and the only shares to pay dividends, while the other 80% of the shares are class B stock. Of course, such a claim would be both legally absurd and morally reprehensible.

---------

Following are several brief essays focusing on important events in the Kingdom of Hawai'i. These essays are intended to show that non-kanaka maoli were full partners in the Kingdom, and played an essential role in preserving its independence. However, almost all modern-day kanaka maoli sovereignty activists prefer to ignore or downplay the importance of non-kanaka maoli in the Kingdom, because the activists seek entitlement programs or sovereignty for the race of kanaka maoli alone.

---------

VOTING RIGHTS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS WERE ESTABLISHED BY KAUIKEAOULI DURING THE DECADE OF THE 1840s FOR ALL RACES EQUALLY AND NOT FOR KANAKA MAOLI ALONE

King Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III was probably born in the year 1814, a son of Kamehameha the Great by his sacred wife Keopuolani. When his older brother Liholiho Kamehameha II died in 1825, Kauikeaouli became king at the age of 11. For his first seven years as king, the real power was exercised by Ka'ahumanu, a favorite wife of Kamehameha I, until she died in 1832. But thereafter, he began exercising real power.

Kauikeaouli's actual date of birth is unknown. This is surprising, because although there was no written Hawaiian language in 1814, his birth was a very important event. His father was undisputed ruler of all Hawai'i, his mother was a sacred high chiefess, and even before his birth it was clear he would be next in line for the throne after his older brother Liholiho. Hawaiians had a traditional lunar calendar in which every day has a special name, and surely an event so important as the birth of a future king would be remembered and celebrated with chants, songs, and hula. His name indicates the miraculous circumstances of his birth, which makes it all the more surprising that an exact date cannot be fixed -- he was born not breathing, and was brought to life only after several minutes of fervent prayer and chanting, and was thereupon given his name, which means "standing in the dark cloud (of death)."

At some point during the early years of his reign, when the Western calendar had been adopted, he chose March 17 as his official "birthday," in much the same way as other monarchs choose an official birthday, so the nation could celebrate an annual holiday in his honor. On March 17, 1999, a small gathering of sovereignty activists and guests was held on the grounds of 'Iolani Palace to celebrate Kauikeaouli's birthday. On that occasion I gave a brief speech, which I have lengthened and expressed more emphatically as follows:

In 1840 Kauikeaouli proclaimed the first Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawai'i. He voluntarily gave up his absolute power to create a rule of law, and provided full and equal voting rights for all subjects of Hawai'i, including non-kanaka maoli.

From 1848 to 1850 Kauikeaouli created the Great Mahele. He voluntarily gave up his absolute ownership of all the lands of Hawai'i and provided full and equal rights to ownership of private lands for all subjects, kanaka maoli and non-kanaka maoli alike. In addition, the Mahele set aside the government lands, owned by the government as trustee for the collective of all subjects, to be used for public purposes (harbors, parks, schools, government buildings, roads, etc.) benefitting all residents. In addition, the Mahele set aside the crown lands, which belonged to the office of the sovereignty (not to the king personally; when the king died they were passed to the next king, not to the dead king's personal heirs) for the purpose of supporting and maintaining that office. The government and crown lands from the kingdom are nowadays known as the ceded lands.

Under subsequent monarchs and subsequent constitutions, the right to vote was extended also to the denizens of Hawai'i, that is, permanent residents of Hawai'i who had come here from other lands and still retained (dual) citizenship in their nations of origin. And under subsequent monarchs and constitutions, the right to own property was extended not only to denizens but to all residents and even non-resident foreigners.

All the things in the above three paragraphs happened under the sovereign nation of Hawai'i, long before the "bayonet constitution" of 1887. These equal voting rights and property rights were first set in place by the sovereign King Kauikeaouli, and were maintained and extended to the denizens and residents by subsequent monarchs and constitutions. During this time, and prior to 1887, there were thousands of non-kanaka maoli subjects, and many more thousands of non-kanaka maoli denizens eligible to vote and residents and foreigners eligible to own property, and many non-kanaka maoli were elected to the legislature and served as important appointed officials and cabinet officers.

As clearly shown above, the sovereign, independent nation of Hawai'i that existed prior to 1893 (or prior to 1887 if you prefer) was NOT a nation whose citizens or voters or property owners were exclusively kanaka maoli. It was not a nation of indigenous people. It was not a nation whose citizens were of just one race. There were many thousands of non-kanaka maoli. More kept coming every month, and were welcomed and needed for their expertise, and some received by law the right to vote and all could own property. This multiracial nation is the one whose monarch was overthrown, and whose lands were ceded to the United States. This nation of multiracial citizenship is the one that has the claim to restoration of sovereign independence, return of ceded lands, and reparations.

Kauikeaouli wore two hats. As King of a multiracial nation he proclaimed the Constitution of 1840 and he presided over the Mahele of 1848. But in addition, he was also a son of the conqueror Kamehameha the Great. And upon the death of his brother Liholiho, Kauikeaouli became the undisputed leader of the indigenous kanaka maoli people. The decisions he made as king were also made in his capacity as undisputed indigenous leader. He therefore exercised the right of self determination of the indigenous natives when he created the constitution and the mahele, enlisting his native people into a constitutional monarchy and binding them to the rule of written law, providing equal voting and property rights to all subjects including non-kanaka maoli. And his successors as monarch, under subsequent constitutions, further exercised the self determination of the indigenous native people when voting rights were extended to the denizens and property rights extended to everyone.

In conclusion, I have tried to show that the right to vote and to own property was first given by Kauikeaouli in writing to all subjects, including non-kanaka maoli; and voting rights were extended further under later monarchs to include denizens, while property rights were also extended to residents and foreigners Kauikeaouli and his successors acted both as sovereign monarchs of a multiracial nation and also as leaders exercising the self-determination of the indigenous kanaka maoli natives, in providing such equal rights to non-kanaka maoli, who made up a very substantial part of the nation and of its leadership. This multiracial nation is the one whose de-facto sovereignty and lands were affected by the overthrow and annexation and statehood. This multiracial nation is the one to whom the United States would owe a restoration of de-facto sovereignty, ceded lands, and reparations; if indeed anything at all is owed. In the spirit of the ancestors and monarchs, and under the constitutions and laws they wrote, any restoration of sovereignty is for a nation, not for a race. Modern sovereignty activists like to say that they are not seeking special rights for a race, but are making demands based on national or political status. And that is all I am saying -- sovereignty for a nation, not for a race.

-----------

THE PAULET AFFAIR OF 1843 AND THE NATIONAL HOLIDAY KA LA HO'IHO'I EA (The day of the return of sovereignty)

During 1842-1843 various British merchants had been unable to collect on some major debts owed by some important ali'i in 1843, so in frustration Captain Paulet of the British navy with American help put considerable pressure (including military) on King Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III to pay the debts. When the king could not pay, Paulet demanded and received a cession of Hawaiian sovereignty to Britain. To put it differently: Captain Paulet foreclosed on the sovereignty of Hawai'i to collect the debts owed. The king gave Hawaii to the British on February 25, 1843, under protest, the Hawaiian flag was lowered and the British flag was raised, and Captain Paulet exercised power as chief executive for five months. But the cession of sovereignty was protested, and when word got to the British government, they sent Admiral Richard Thomas to Honolulu to restore sovereignty to the King. On July 31, 1843, Admiral Thomas landed at what is now known as Thomas Square (the shoreline was farther inland in those days) where the king went to meet him. They walked from there to Kawaiaha'o Church (built by the missionaries 20 years previously), where Admiral Thomas formally returned sovereignty to the King. And at that point the King uttered the famous words, now the state motto: "Ua mau ke ea o ka 'aina i ka pono." The official translation given by the State of Hawai'i is "The life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness." But in view of the history just told, I believe the King was really saying, "Sovereignty over the land has been restored because it was (the) righteous (thing to do)."

The story as just told is factually correct, but leaves out important details which the sovereignty activists seldom mention.

Just prior to the ceding of sovereignty to the British, the king had considered ceding sovereignty jointly to the French and the U.S., and had even gone so far as to have the papers drawn up. But an American physician and missionary, Gerrit Judd, who had been a very important advisor and cabinet member to the king for about 20 years, persuaded the king not to sign those papers, because doing so would be a voluntary act of ceding sovereignty which could not later be protested. Judd urged the king to cede sovereignty to the British, under protest. So the following day, the king did cede sovereignty to the British under protest. The King had no idea how to regain sovereignty, and was unable to act because he was suffering from alcoholism and also from depression over the loss of his kingdom. But Gerrit Judd hid from Lord Paulet and secretly wrote an appeal to the British government. Rev. Judd worked at night by candlelight in the mausoleum which was then located on the Palace grounds, using the coffin of Queen Ka'ahumanu for a writing desk, and composed the appeal which was successful in getting the British government to send Admiral Thomas to Honolulu to restore the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Hawai'i. And during the final ceremony at Kawaiaha'o Church, when Admiral Thomas handed sovereignty back to Hawai'i, it was Gerrit Judd who stood at the church and read aloud in Hawaiian language Admiral Thomas' formal declaration, which prompted the king to make his famous one-line acceptance. Gerrit Judd was a highly patriotic non-kanaka maoli citizen of the Kingdom, without whom sovereign independence would certainly have been lost. Ka La Ho'iho'i Ea was celebrated with pageantry and luau for 49 years from 1843 through 1892, and has been revived in modern times by kanaka maoli sovereignty activist Dr. Kekuni Blaisdell whose small group stages a pep rally at Thomas Square in Honolulu every July 31.

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

INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION OF HAWAIIAN INDEPENDENCE; AND THE NATIONAL HOLIDAY KA LA KU'OKO'A (Independence Day)

At the same time the Paulet affair was going on, another diplomatic mission was underway. In 1842 Kauikeaouli, at the suggestion of Gerrit Judd, had sent two men to the United States, England, and France to try to obtain international recognition of the independence of Hawai'i. The two Hawaiians arrived in December 1842 in Washington and talked with Daniel Webster, secretary of state to President John Tyler. Tyler would not sign anything, but agreed in principle that Hawai'i should be independent. The two Hawaiians then went to France and Britain where they spent almost a year and finally were able to get a joint declaration in which both France and Britain agreed reciprocally to recognize Hawai'i's independence. That declaration was proclaimed by France and Britain on November 28, 1843, about half a year after the Paulet affair had been resolved. Britain and France thereby agreed between themselves that neither would try to annex Hawai'i without the approval of the other. But this was not a treaty with Hawai'i, it was only a joint declaration of the intent of France and Britain. Afterward, the two Hawaiians returned to the United States with the joint proclamation from France and Britain, to try to get the U.S. to sign on. But the United States never agreed to this joint proclamation, although there was a (different) treaty of friendship and commerce between the U.S. and Hawai'i negotiated and ratified between December 1849 and August 1850.

The date of November 28 became a national holiday for the Kingdom of Hawai'i in 1845, recognizing the joint proclamation by France and Britain recognizing Hawaiian independence that had been issued on November 28, 1843.

The version of this story that is told by modern-day kanaka maoli sovereignty activists is that the two-man diplomatic mission to France, Britain, and the U.S. was headed by the ali'i Timoteo Ha'alilio, who took along the American missionary William Richards as his secretary. Apparently, that's the way the story was told in one of the many Hawaiian-language political activist newspapers published later in the century during a period when many kanaka maoli were resisting the Bayonet Constitution, the overthrow, and the annexation.

However, the truth is this: William Richards had been the head American missionary in Lahaina, and had served as an important advisor to King Kauikeaouli for about 20 years prior to the diplomatic mission. Kauikeaouli gave Reverend Richards blank sheets of paper with the King's signature and his royal seal, trusting Richards to make whatever agreements he thought best. The young ali'i Timoteo Ha'alilio tagged along to have an adventure and see the world just as young aristocrats in many nations often do. But it was Rev. Richards who spoke on behalf of the King, and after Ha'alilio's death on December 3, 1844, Richards completed the journey and brought the documents of recognition safely back to Hawai'i. Naturally, kanaka maoli political activists in the 1800s and nowadays would want to downplay the importance of a haole missionary who was a senior advisor to the king, and sarcastically refer to him as merely a secretary to a young kanaka ali'i. It is very unlikely that Ha'alilio had status anywhere near to William Richards, because the name of Timoteo Ha'alilio is unknown in any connection other than the journey he made with William Richards. It is clear that without Rev Richards there never would have been a La Ku'oko'a.

For further information about the ethnic cleansing of historical Hawaiian Kingdom holidays, and also the hijacking of American holidays by Hawaiian sovereignty activists, please see

Why do Hawaiian sovereignty activists try to hijack American holidays, and why do they engage in ethnic cleansing of the historical holidays of the multiracial Hawaiian Kingdom?

Reminder: The Hawaiian activists make an analogy a houseguest who overstayed his welcome, invited more guests, overwhelmed the rightful owner, and pushed the owner into a backyard tent. To read the analogy and see a corrected version of it, visit:
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/stolenhousecar.html

CHARLES REED BISHOP WAS THE WEALTHIEST MAN IN THE KINGDOM OF HAWAI'I. HE DONATED FAR MORE MONEY TO ESTABLISH KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS THAN THE VALUE OF ALL THE LAND DONATED BY HIS WIFE, PRINCESS BERNICE PAUAHI BISHOP. IN ADDITION, CHARLES BISHOP ESTABLISHED THE BISHOP MUSEUM AND DONATED TO IT HUNDREDS OF HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ITEMS HE HAD PURCHASED. AND HE ALSO DONATED LARGE AMOUNTS TO QUEENS HOSPITAL. HIS TOMB IS IN MAUNA ALA (THE ROYAL MAUSOLEUM). SEE:
http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/BishopCharlesRavlonitis.html


(c) Copyright 2000 - 2006 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved

=====================

GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE

Email: ken_conklin@yahoo.com