It was reported in the daily newspapers on January 18, 2007 that Senator Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) has reintroduced the Akaka bill yet again. So once more the people of Hawaii are going to be confronted with a divisive issue that is sure to damage the islands.

What is so disheartening about this is the rewriting of history that goes along with the push for Native Hawaiian sovereignty. Sen. Akaka is quoted as saying that the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani, “expedited the decline of a proud and self-governing people” and “facilitated native Hawaiians being disenfranchised from not only their culture and land, but from their way of life.”

Based on the study and conclusions of the Morgan Report of 1894 and the Native Hawaiian Study Commission Report of 1983, the Native Hawaiians of the 1890 era were not a “self-governing people.” From the time of Kamehameha the First, Europeans and Americans were part of the government. With each successive generation more non-Hawaiians entered and became part of the government. At the time of the revolution against Liliuokalani the government was mostly run by non-Hawaiians and had been for many years.

When Liliuokalani took the throne she agreed to abide by the 1887 constitution. In 1893 she dismissed her cabinet and had the legislature appoint a new one that was amenable to her wishes. She wanted to issue permits for opium sales and institute a state lottery. The previous cabinet refused to go along with her wishes and so she replaced it. She also thought, mistakenly, that the new one would rubberstamp her new constitution.

All this took place in just a few days. After getting the legislature to appoint the new cabinet she dismissed the legislature for that session. The new cabinet felt that they could not approve a new constitution without the consent of the legislature, since this was the way the law was written. When the Queen didn’t get the cooperation from the cabinet  she became angry and the government, at that point, was in disarray.

The cabinet then went to the business community to seek advice as to what to do. This is what precipitated the rebellion. The cabinet considered Liliuokalani in rebellion against the Hawaiian constitution. So at that point there was no government.

This is the situation that American Minister John Stevens found upon his return from a week long voyage viewing naval maneuvers. When he left a week earlier everything seemed stable and he anticipated that the government would be stable for at least another 2 years. The idea that he “colluded” with the business community is totally refuted by this fact.

The troops that were landed to keep the peace had historic precedence. At least twice before the U.S. had landed troops to maintain the peace and protect American interests in Honolulu. Admiral Wiltse had already delegated troops to guard American interests before Minister Stevens even asked for them. The timeline between when Queen Liliuokalani presented her new constitution and the landing of troops was very short, about 5 hours at most.

The business community that the cabinet went to consult consisted mostly of Europeans and Americans. They subsequently formed the “Committee of Safety” to keep the peace in the event that violence should arise because of the dissolution of the government. It wasn’t a planned action but in response to events.

The “loss of land” that Sen. Akaka alludes to took place decades earlier in the Great Mahele when the land was divided between the King, the Ali’i (the Royal families) and the common people. The vast majority of the land went to the Royalty and the Ali’i.
A tiny fraction was allotted to the common people, although it was some of the most productive land where their families had lived for decades, if not centuries.

The land reserved for the Monarchy and the Ali’i was turned over to the United States at the time of annexation. This is today termed by Hawaiian activists as “stolen” lands. They were placed in trust for the Hawaiian people. That fact that government, as is often the case, did a poor job of managing such a trust isn’t the issue. Nothing was “stolen.”

As for losing a way of life, none of us live the same “way of life” as our ancestors. Is there any rational person who really desires a return to the 1893 “way of life” without personal “cherry-picking” from today?

Donald Newman is a policy analyst with the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.

For More Information:

"Akaka bill foes ready for new fight," The Honolulu Advertiser, Jan. 18, 2007

"Akaka says revised bill can pass this term," Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Jan. 18, 2007

The Morgan Report

The Native Hawaiians Study Commission Report