Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

For the student-led discussion on Tuesday, 10/23.

An informative video on the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement in the mid-70s, which is referenced by Candace Fujikane in Between Nationalisms. Enjoy.

-Jon Vorpe

Ch. 16: Nationalism?

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

Queen Liliuokalani's diction

     

Post #1

     In class, on Wednesday, Professor Wilson argued that Ch. XI “Mauna Loa” of Hawaii’s Story by Hawaii’s Queen showcases Liliuokalani’s Western leanings about Pele and religion.  But I think it is quite the opposite, the Queen’s language in this chapter shows her distinctly Hawaiian views of nature and natural “disasters”. 

     In 1880, Queen Liliuokalani and her family witnessed the beginning of Mauna Loa’s eruption. The language that Liliuokalani uses to describe the eruption shows that to Hawaiians volcanoes are not natural disasters, but something more closely related to a celebration of the land. Queen Liliuokalani describes the eruptions as “nature’s gorgeous fireworks” (71). A Western observer of this event would use language focusing on horror and the frightening aspects of the event, making it a natural disaster, not something joyous. Furthermore, Liliuokalani describes the flames as “light” and is portrayed as “dancing” (71). The volcanic eruption is something like a party to her. The Queen claims that Hawaiians do not worship Pele anymore, but based on the diction surrounding the eruption, a celebration of Hawaii is definitely an aspect of the eruption.  This chapter showcases Queen Liliuokalani’s distinctly Hawaiian viewpoint of the land, even though she may still have Western religious leanings because of her education. 

-Mary Rowan

Rituals & Worship: A Hawaiian Past Time

In the chapter Mauna Loa, from Hawai’i’s Story by Hawai’i’s Queen, Queen Lili’uokalani communicates an attitude that says the goddess Pele and the rituals associated with her worship are relics of the past. At times throughout her memoir it’s difficult to pinpoint which side, the missionaries’ or her native Hawaii, she’s on. Initially, it seems as though she mocks the tourists’ custom of throwing coins or other trinkets into the crater of Kilauea while scarcely knowing Hawaii’s ancient history. Then she turns around and says Hawaiians “have no money to throw away on such souvenirs of the past” (p.72). This statement expresses her opinion that rituals of the old, such as making offerings to the goddess Pele for mercy, are no longer worth performing especially if it means throwing away money that native Hawaiians don’t even have. The ritual has become a past time that she dismisses as a “harmless sport.”

Queen Lili’uokalani’s Christian upbringing and her aunt, Queen Kapiolani, play a role in her attitude towards Pele. In 1824, Queen Kapiolani defied the power of goddess Pele and overthrew native Hawaiians’ superstitious fears of being punished if they didn’t pray or make offerings to her. Queen Kapiolani accomplished this by being lowered into a crater within Mauna Loa called, Halemaumau. She not only survived this feat without reciting the sacred prayers of native Hawaiians, but she did so by reciting her own Christian prayers. Queen Kapiolani proved that native Hawaiian beliefs were obsolete.

- Francis Miguelino

"Colony" as Metonymy:

     I have been wrestling with this problem for a while and this is the my progress so far. It is not a literary analysis as I am accustomed to writing, but it is an analysis none the less. It is different than anything I have every submitted to a literature class but, this is a literature class unlike any I have had before.

     The term colony does not indicate a place but a condition. To say that some place is a colony, (French, British, German, English, Dutch, American, etc) is a syntactic deception. The place is always itself, the colony is only an orientation others take towards it. This is akin to calling a running person a runner. They are not a runner, they have the condition of running--they are a person. In this way Hawaii is not, nor ever was, a colony, but has the property of being colonized, which is the property of being approached by specific people for specific purposes in a specific way. Hawaii’s Story cannot be a post-colonial document because Hawaii was never a colony. It was always Hawaii, it is still Hawaii, and it still is exploited in the same way. It is a Hawaiian document recording continual colonial forces. In this way Liliuokalani’s story is actually Hawaii’s story, it is the story of non-Hawaiian forces, both coercive and brutally physical, exploiting a person for colonial purposes. Hawaii is in what resists, is in Liliuokalani’s resistance. 

     Furthermore, to call something post-colonial is to define it by negation. Every text can be defined as the response to something else, but we do not call continental american literature post-european. It embodies the time before it and its present, so that it is not thought of as being “post”, for the past is rich in it. It, in fact, would not be possible without the past continued in it.

     When a person refers to the state Hawaii they are signifying something other than what I consider Hawaii. This double signification is not merely something I have created, or else the redundancy in the term “Native Hawaiian” would be obvious. A Hawaiian is someone native to Hawaii--if otherwise is possible than the word Hawaii must have more than one meaning. The second meaning is the contemporary equivalent to "Colony". Calling the state of being subjected to the United States "Hawaii" is metonymy, the subjection is merely "next" to Hawaii. This is not to say that a Hawaiian exploited or inundated into another culture is no longer a Hawaiian, this is to say that their condition is more than Hawaiian. People are more than the conditions they are currently subject to, their pasts live in them. Likewise, they adopt more self as they grow. There is more in them that is more than their being subjected to some condition or circumstance than their past. We are creators of ourselves.

Joseph Watkins

Liliuokalani’s Humorous, Yet Revealing, Observations Regarding Some Truths about British Culture circa late-19th Century

Liliuokalani’s Humorous, Yet Revealing, Observations Regarding Some Truths about British Culture circa late-19^th Century

While Hawaii’s Story By Hawaii’s Queen acts as a most illuminating account into the unfortunate demise of the great nation of Hawaii, it seems only fair that one notes the few humorous admissions the pop up during Liliuokalani’s memoir.  It is also quite curious that several of these revelations revolve around Liliuokalani’s preconceptions and subsequent observations during her trip to British Isles.

One of these observations occurs during an outing to Richmond, after the Jubilee celebration of Queen Victoria (165).  During their evening stay in “this pleasant place,” Liliuokalani and Queen Kapiolani are “conducted to a house exhibited to us as the type of an English inn” (165).  However, this inn hardly lives up to the standards of the “glorious descriptions” that Liliuokalani had “read [about] from her earliest days…where the pleasures of the chase culminated, and to whose doors the trophies of hunters were brought” (165).  Some readers might classify these revelations as proof of the spoiled nature of the last Hawaiian sovereign.  However, it seems much more realistic that this is nothing more than Liliuokalani’s disappointment as she realizes she has been mislead as to the true nature of the “inns of which the English novelists” scrawl within their texts, reminiscent of the disappointment a child feels after they learn that Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny aren’t real; sorry if I ruined that for anyone in our section (165).

The next day as the Liliuokalani and Queen Kapiolani continue their journey up the Thames, Liliuokalani witnesses, what is to her, a most bizarre incident:

            “But there was one phase of the exhibition which excited my attention, not to say surprise an wonder.  This was the indifference of the men in the smaller boats, who lounged in the stern, cigar in mouth, book or paper in hand, while the poor girls with poles exerted their strength to the utmost to shove, their boats along the waters of the lock.  Men smoking or reading while the women were doing all the work!  Taking their ease, while from those called the weaker sex came the exertions necessary to get the boat into her place amongst the crowd of others.  It was not a pleasant picture, nor did it speak of gallantry.  I had never seen anything like it.”  (166-167)

Again, this revealing account of an occurrence during Liliuokalani’s stay in England seems much more like the previously-chronicled disappointment as opposed to evidence of the spoiled nature of Liliuokalani: surely the infamous male protagonists of the renowned “English novelists” would not allow such a defiance of “gallantry” to occur (165, 167).

-Michael Kell

My Love Hate Relationship With Liliuokalani

     After reading Hawaii's Story By Hawaii's Queen, I was unsure of how I felt towards Liluokalani. I think the best way to describe my impression of her is to say that I have a love hate relationship. There were several passages where I did a mental applause for Liluokalani and was genuinely impressed by her commitment to her people, her keen awareness of the situation at hand, and  her drive for the preservation of Hawaii. For example, Chapter XLI (and more specifically pg. 257) Liliokalani gives a detailed report of the government take over and all the trickery that was underway.
          "Where was proper consideration given to my own statement to President Harrison...? Why were not the petitions of the patriotic leagues of my people put into the inquiry? Why was not the fact that there was such an inquiry going on communicated to me? Why were my enemies informed of that which was in progress, so that they could hurry to Washington, or send their testimony, while not one of my friends was given the opportunity to raise a voice in behalf of the disfranchised Hawaiian people or their persecuted queen?"
     Moments like the passage above made me love Lilokalani. I felt that she really had her wits about her and she stood upon strong moral grounds to fight against the invading United States. The autobiography actually reminded me of a lot of a love letter to her fellow Native Hawaiian and the land and, for this, I truly admired  her.
     So what did I hate? I hated the way she went about presenting everything. I know that in discussion we talked about her straight forward writing style being a tool she utilized for presenting historical facts and the great influence her childhood teachings at the Royal School had on her mannerism, but even with these taken into consideration I found myself annoyed! Maybe my dislike stemmed more from her writing style then her actual self but I felt that she painted herself as a victim or hero (depending on the situation) far too often. For example, when she is thrown from the carriage and gets injured the rest of the chapter is dedicated to her trying to be strong through this almost instant death. It just felt over done.
     I looked up some of her songs and read over the lyrics and THAT is the Liliuokalani I wished I could have read from! A lot of her songs are about love and nature, the beauty of Hawaii and, most importantly, they're filled with passion. The writing style here is beautiful and poetic and for many of the songs she was the direct translator for the English versions. So where did that passionate writing style go in her autobiography? I understand that this is an autobiography and that she can't necessarily be as poetic as her songs, but the gap between her artsy self and her very removed manner of writing her book seemed, to me, like too big of an extreme.

-Vanessa Arredondo