Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,829
Reply with quote  #1 
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
...salutes his favorite American President, Grover Cleveland, who opposed the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani and the annexation of Hawaii...though as an anarcho-monarchist Friend points out, William Henry Harrison had very little time to get up to any mischief.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TsaristCatholic1918
I watched a PBS documentary on her an it seems, alas, liberals who saw the annex badly did it in light of the noble savage, while I myself think the Hawaiian queen looked beautiful for her European civilty. Also, the liberals likely would like a Hawaiian republic, which while better given I should not like to be an American if I were a Hawaiian. I like the idea of a sovereign, civilised monarchy, not a hula republic, or worse a slut island state like it is have now.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jkelleher

Theo, I'm not sure if I ever showed this to you or not. Some neocon blogger posted an article by Ken Conklin [whose name you probably recognize, if you follow ongoing debates over the "Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement"]. I posted a reply to that which you can see at the bottom of the page:
http://kalapanapundit.blogspot.com/2007/01/was-hawaii-queen-liliuokalani-really.html

I have very little respect for the rather peculiar folks who comprise the latter-day "Sovereignty Movement," but I have even less respect for their opponents who utilize anti-Lili'uokalani slander to justify their points.

Oh, and I think you and I differ on favorite American presidents. Mine would still have to be Nixon - aside from that brilliant tripolarity business, I have to love the man who stuck a thumb in Carter's eye by showing up at the Shah's funeral.


Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
That's a decent response as far as you go, but you and I will never see eye to eye on this. I bitterly resent US occupation of Hawaii and will never accept it, let alone celebrate it. I'm with the anti-American "sovereignty zealots" all the way, at least the monarchist ones.


Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
I am not sure how "peculiar" contemporary sovereignty activists are, maybe they are, but they're still right on the basic issue. I support the restoration of all monarchies and that certainly includes Hawaii.



royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,829
Reply with quote  #2 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkelleher

They are indeed peculiar, and most are not what either you or I would consider monarchists. The few who are pro-monarchy inevitably seem to be plumping for themselves as claimants of some sort, like that "Akahi Nui" nut. Most are like Mililani Trask, who says she has no wish to replace Lili'uokalani with another Queen and that "the Hawai'ian people have overwhelmingly rejected restoration of the monarchy." As always, I have to wonder on what basis people like Trask are pushing themselves forward as spokespersons for the Hawai'ian people at large.

Of course, it is always worth noting that the Kawananakoa family - the only family with any justifiable right to claim the vacant throne - have shown no interest whatsoever in these sovereignty movements. They are of course still important cultural symbols for Hawai'ians, and several members of the family - especially the elderly Princess Abigail Kinoiki-Kekaulike Kawananakoa - act as guests of honor at important cultural events. That has not stopped them from adapting quite effectively to life in the State of Hawai'i, most particularly Prince Quentin Kuhio, who has enjoyed a rather prominent career in law and Republican Party politics in Hawai'i.

I used to hold similar views as you. If you haven't already, I would advise that you read the magnum opus of the doyen of Hawai'ian historians, the late Dr. Ralph S. Kuykendall. His three-volume "History of the Hawaiian Kingdom" is a beautiful work of history, effortlessly tying in the threads of political, diplomatic, commercial, cultural and religious history. He makes it very clear that all these factors were pulling closer to the U.S. orbit for some decades prior to annexation. Hawai'i's amalgamation into the U.S. in some manner or other was somewhat inevitable - what I object to is the specific event that made that amalgamation ultimately a reality, rather than said amalgamation itself.

Kuykendall bends over backwards to be fair - in the final chapters of his work Lili'uokalani and Dole both emerge as ultimately sympathetic characters. It is L.A. Thurston who emerges as the inveterate rabble-rouser behind the events of January 1893, and it is difficult to like or admire that man based on what Kuykendall has to say about him. Gavan Daws' "Shoal of Time" is a worthwhile one-volume work if you cannot get your hands on all 3 Kuykendall volumes. Since Kuykendall's work necessarily ends with the July 1894 promulgation of a republican constitution, Daws' work is a worthwhile companion-piece. Kuykendall himself also produced a one-volume "History of Hawaii" - it includes a much, much, MUCH reduced & condensed treatment of the content from his "History of the Hawaiian Kingdom," with the latter half of the book being taken up by Hawai'i's subsequent history.

I do believe that going at least as far back as 1876 [and arguably 2 or 3 decades further back] Hawai'i's fate was inextricably linked to that of the United States. The only question worth asking at the point was when Hawai'i would become more formally attached to the U.S., and what form that attachment would take. It is, as I said, the form that I object to, with the Hawai'ian Crown being forcefully sidelined by a self-anointed oligarchy. Most latter-day Hawai'ian citizens are happy enough being a U.S. State and only the fringe knuckleheads I described in the first paragraph would actively wish to change that. And, as I said, none of them could be seriously termed "monarchist."
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,829
Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
I am sorry that more sovereignty advocates are not traditional monarchists, but that doesn't make their opponents right. I think I have made it clear elsewhere that I am _not_ in favor of the members of deposed royal families "adapting effectively" to republicanism. Archduke Otto recognizes the Austrian Republic, prefers to be known as "Dr. Habsburg," has served in the European Parliament as an ordinary MEP, and does not seek the restoration of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. I still respectfully disagree with him and insist on regarding him as de jure Emperor and the Austrian, Hungarian, and Czech republics as illegitimate abominations, and so I must also disagree with Prince Quentin if he does not seek the restoration of the Hawaiian monarchy.

I don't accept that any particular historical development is either inevitable or irreversible. Whatever the failings of the current sovereignty movement, my position remains adamantly that Hawaii should be an independent Kingdom and not in any way part of the USA. I am truly sorry to hear that you changed your mind. I never will. If there are very few people today who are actually advocating my position, well, that's hardly a new situation for me!


Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
Also, I fail to see why I should be moved by the fact that "most latter-day Hawaiian citizens are happy enough being a U.S. State." If I may make another analogy with Europe, it is probably just as true that most current residents of Austria, Hungary, Germany, France, Portugal, Italy, etc. are "happy enough" being citizens of republics. I still think they're wrong. Obviously that "happiness" is what I want to change, everywhere in the world where a monarchy has been either supplanted or absorbed by a republic.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,829
Reply with quote  #4 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkelleher

Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
I am sorry that more sovereignty advocates are not traditional monarchists, but that doesn't make their opponents right.


You and I are in agreement here - I think that's what I tried to make clear in my reply to that Ken Conklin article. The sovereignty activists are odd folk, but I have a reciprocal dislike for folks on the other end of the spectrum, including Ken Conklin and his buddy, Mr. Thurston Twigg-Smith [maternal grandson of the dreadful L.A. Thurston].

Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
I think I have made it clear elsewhere that I am _not_ in favor of the members of deposed royal families "adapting effectively" to republicanism.


And I would agree with the principle whilst arguing that its applicability varies in the real world from case to case. I would, for example, be opposed to HM King Gyanendra giving up his uniquely ex-sovereign status and mainstreaming his own role within the context of a republican setup. Gyanendra still has a more-than-sporting chance of recovering his throne, and there is much more that he can do than simply keeping the cultural heritage of the Shri Panch alive. He still has a political role to play, and may yet have a more substantive role to play in the near future.

But, that does not apply to a case such as France, Austria, or Hawai'i, where there is simply no chance of a political restoration. Not in our lifetimes at least, or any time soon thereafter. The most that I can expect from the latter-day heirs of such monarchies is to maintain their visibility for the sake of keeping alive the unique cultural/historical heritage which they represent. The representatives of all three examples given above have managed to do so with considerable aplomb.

In the Hawai'ian case, I think it would be nearly impossible for the Kawananakoa family to maintain the monkish seclusion from worldly affairs that you seem to expect. They have played an *EXTREMELY* active role in Hawai'ian politics going back to the very earliest years of the Territory - don't forget that the modern Prince Kuhio's namesake, Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana'ole, was one of the first of the Territory's delegates-to-congress, serving in that capacity 1904-1922. He was a significant power-broker in his own right during those years and played an instrumental role in launching Hawai'i's Republican Party, a role which his widowed sister-in-law Princess Abigail would carry on after his death. Prince Jonah's elder brother [Princess Abigail's deceased husband], Prince David Kawananakoa, played a similarly pivotal role in launching Hawai'i's Democratic Party during his own lifetime.

The Kawananakoas also have significant business interests [both in the Islands and elsewhere], which would make their involvement in the overlapping field of politics inevitable as well. They are, through the Princess Abigail, the main beneficiaries of the James Campbell Estate, which remains one of the largest landowners in the Islands and has considerable interests elsewhere [including my own stomping-grounds, Boston!]. This high visibility in business and politics has enabled the Kawananakoas to keep the heritage they represent in likewise high visibility, and has enabled them to financially subsidize the tangible symbols of that heritage. The restoration of 'Iolani Palace would not have been possible without the wealth and influence of the Kawananakoas. I do not believe that any of this is "regrettable."
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,829
Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkelleher
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
I don't accept that any particular historical development is either inevitable or irreversible. Whatever the failings of the current sovereignty movement, my position remains adamantly that Hawaii should be an independent Kingdom and not in any way part of the USA.


I myself am not a huge fan of inevitability either. If I was, I would probably be a bigger fan than I am of religious prophecies, or of Marxist dialectics. You should know by now that I have scant regard for either.

When I say that after 1876 some form of Hawai'ian attachment to the U.S. had become inevitable, I am speaking in terms of what had already, by then, become a de facto reality. The sugar markets had by that time become Hawai'i's principal export and the key to its own long-term survival. Finding a tariff-free market for this export was Priority #1 for the Hawai'ian government, and the United States was, geographically and commercially, the most strategically obvious such partner.

The attempt to secure a treaty of reciprocity with the U.S. went as far back as circa 1853-1857, during the closing years of Kamehameha III's reign and the start of Kamehameha IV's. Negotiations began again in the reign of Kamehameha V circa 1864-1868, this time much more aggressively. It is significant to note that despite the autocratic predilections and generally pro-English sympathies of the last two Kamehamehas, both brothers saw reciprocity with the U.S. as a key to Hawai'i's own survival. King Kalakaua's successful negotiation of such a treaty in 1876 was not a new departure in Hawai'ian politics, but rather the culmination of what had already been a matter of state policy for some time.

Even during the earliest negotiations for reciprocity, American influence was nothing new. The American merchant ships and naval vessels had been very early visitors to the Islands, second only to the British themselves. Close diplomatic relations with the U.S. were deliberately cultivated by the earlier rulers of the Kamehameha Dynasty for the specific reason of counterbalancing British and French influence - this "tripolarity" between competing Brtish, French, and American interests was seen as necessary for maintaining Hawai'ian independence. Don't forget, the European powers had not always demonstrated the most noble intentions where Hawai'i was concerned. Britain's first consul to the Islands was a blustering, threatening hothead, and the British Captain Lord George Paulet even briefly annexed the Islands to the U.K. in 1843. Relations were even more uneven with France, and Hawai'i was repeatedly subjected to the depredations of French sea captains in the 1830's and 1840's before Hawai'ian French relations were finally stabilized by a new treaty in the 1850's.

Part of the reason I would recommend Kuykendall's work to you, Theodore, is that he does an *EXCELLENT* job with the diplomatic component of his history, discussing in minute detail the always-continuing negotiations by Hawai'i's rulers for more equitable treaties with the various powers of Europe, America, and [eventually] Japan. Exploiting the mutual jealousies of the major powers was the key to this process, and was quite nearly the only "lever" which the Hawai'ian rulers could rely on the guarantee more equitable terms than they might otherwise expect from the great maritime powers of the age. Of course, this balance depended on Hawai'i remaining diplomatically equidistant from all three of the major powers. Economic necessity impelled Hawai'i to gradually abandon this balance in favor of closer ties with the U.S., a new relationship which was consummated in the 1876 Treaty of Reciprocity.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jkelleher

This, really, is what set the clock ticking on Hawai'i's independence, and the reason I would class this as "inevitable" is because King Kalakaua frankly had not choice in the matter - he *HAD* to formalize a new special relationship with the U.S. to guarantee Hawai'i's economic survival, and the fact that he was able to do so was [rightly[ regarded as a huge diplomatic triumph for the new goverment. It did, on the other hand, scuttle Hawai'i's traditional diplomatic policy. Kalakaua tried to partially counterbalance this with his trip around the world and his simultaneous efforts to open new diplomatic avenues with other powers, but this could only partly balance the overwhelming influence which the U.S. now enjoyed over Hawai'ian commerce and [indirectly] its politics.

I do not believe that what happened in January 1893 was necessarily inevitable. When I say that some form of attachment to the U.S. was unavoidable, I believe that Hawai'i might have been more loosely amalgamated into America's new [at that time] overseas possessions through some form of protectorate or unincorporated territory. This would have placed sharp limitations on Hawai'i's foreign policy [most likely enforcing some sort of exclusive treaty relationship with the U.S] whilst leaving the island's internal government largely to its own devices. This would have satisfied the needs of all the principal players with stakes in the game:
a.) The Hawai'ian government guarantees its favored commercial arrangement with the U.S. whilst keeping itself [nominally] intact;
b.) The U.S. has a biddable Hawai'ian government which can no longer pursue an independent foreign policy with any competing power, whilst at the same time the U.S. government itself does not have to assume any responsibility for governing Hawai'i, nor does it have to face the unpalatable [at that time] prospect of large numbers of Orientals suddenly becoming U.S. citizens;
c.) The other powers had already accepted U.S. hegemony in Hawai'i as a fait accompli at this time, and would not have opposed Hawai'i's overt subjugation to the U.S. as long as their own commercial rights [guaranteed in prior treaties] and their own consular offices were left unmolested.

But, that's not what happened, and instead a tiny cabal with limited support was allowed to organize an antidemocratic and self-serving "republic" which promptly applied for [and eventually received] admission to the U.S. I can object to what happened in 1893 without rejecting every minute of Hawai'ian history which came thereafter.

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.