In response to Mr. Bob Green’s discussion with Mr. Dean Nagasako (West Hawaii Today, March 13) over who stole what at the time of the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, I want to take issue with Mr. Green’s insinuation that Sanford Ballard Dole, Lorrin Thurston and the Committee of Safety were justified in overthrowing Queen Liliuokalani because the Queen “violated an oath to uphold the Hawaiian Constitution of 1887 and attempted to greatly increase her own powers.”
In response to Mr. Bob Green’s discussion with Mr. Dean Nagasako (West Hawaii Today, March 13) over who stole what at the time of the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, I want to take issue with Mr. Green’s insinuation that Sanford Ballard Dole, Lorrin Thurston and the Committee of Safety were justified in overthrowing Queen Liliuokalani because the Queen “violated an oath to uphold the Hawaiian Constitution of 1887 and attempted to greatly increase her own powers.”
The Bayonet Constitution of 1887 was forced upon King Kalakaua at gun point by Lorrin Thurston and the Hawaiian League, effectively stripping the King of his traditional powers. While there can be a whole discussion on the perceived mismanagement of the Kingdom that Thurston (etal) used to justify this armed revolt, the biggest and most disturbing issue about this document was the stripping of almost 2/3 of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s citizens of the right to vote and participate in the political process. This Bayonet Constitution placed members of “Hawaiian League” in key government positions ensuring the business elite would remain in control of Hawaii without the consent of the majority of Hawaii’s citizens.
Queen Liliuokalani tried to correct the injustices placed on the majority of Hawaiian citizens by this Bayonet Constitution but her move threatened the privileged status enjoyed by Mr. Dole, Mr. Thurston and the Hawaii business elite.
While I respect Mr. Green’s research, I suggest that the material he has read was written in English by people who, if not sympathetic to the overthrow, held a Western or American worldview that differed significantly from the Native Hawaiian worldview. There is a lot of material written in the Hawaiian language that paints a very different picture of this time in history.
While I was born in Hawaii much later than Mr. Green, I was born at a time when being Hawaiian and things Hawaiian were looked down upon. (A result of the overthrow and annexation) In the 1970s, the “Hawaiian Renaissance” took shape and began to change the way Hawaiians and being Hawaiian was viewed by the larger “Hawaii” society and Native Hawaiians themselves.
This movement has evolved from being simply a cultural movement to include more political involvement and a more active desire to make political changes. The charge of using “historical revision” on either side of this issue distracts from one important political reality. Hawaiians, as a political group, are going to continue to demand a larger portion of the political pie. Hawaiians are going to increasingly demand that their values and political aspirations be taken seriously. The sooner this reality is recognized and accepted, the sooner we can get on with improving life in Hawaii.
Ua mau ka EA I ka ‘aina I ka pono.
Dale Fergerstrom is a resident of Captain Cook
My Turn opinions are those of the writer and not of West Hawaii Today