In chapter 16 of Liloukalani's memoirs, she describes in great detail the coronation of the new king Kalakau. Toward the end of the chapter she mentions the notion that some may have considered the large celebration as overly extravagant. The last line of the chapter makes a major assumption about how the Hawaian people felt on the topic of how the government spent money: "Naturally, those among us who did not want to have Hawaii remain a nation would look on an expenditure of this kind as worse than wasted" (105). This passage is prefaced by her sentiment that spending a lot of money on the coronation was "wise" and "patriotic." Are either of these statements fair to make? If she is refering to those that wanted to offer the nation to the U.S. for annexation then it would seem fair to claim that they would've liked a less expensive coronation ceremony for a Hawaiian monarch that was about to lose power. This statement also raises further questions as to whether or not the Hawaiin people were happy with their form of government.
Brandon Lovette
Brandon -
ReplyDeleteYour reading of this situation may be a bit unclear. Liliuokalani was asserting that no native Hawaiians viewed the celebration as an extravagant waste, only the haole elite who were plotting the overthrow held this belief because they viewed the king as wasting resources that would soon be theirs... I hope this clarifies a bit, if not please let me know.
- Trey