Hawaiian monarchy
One thing I’ve found living in Hawaii (formerly called the Sandwich Islands by Captain Cook in honor of the Earl of Sandwich) is that the locals don’t admit, much less know, the true history of the islands. I’m sure I’ll get a lot of flack for talking about this but I think it’s something that needs to be brought up.
First off, a local resident (Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.) has spent many years trying to put out the truth. He’s written several books that are effectively banned on the island. The books are continually being stolen from libraries or being defaced so much as to be useless. The schools don’t even bring the up idea that Hawaiian history may be different from “common knowledge” and effectively distort the history of the islands. Locals get almost hostile if it’s implied that the monarchs weren’t anything if not upright, outstanding citizens who only had the best interests of their subjects in mind.
Unfortunately, the history of Hawaii is not what they teach in schools. The so-called “natives” of current Hawaii aren’t truly native. The Polynesians who arrived in Hawaii kicked out or killed the Tahitians who had arrived previously (unfortunately I can’t find the document that mentioned this at the moment, but Wikipedia discusses this to a limited extent). Shortly thereafter the European explorers found the islands.
The history of King Kamehaeha (hereafter called “King Kam”) is suspicious. The legend of his birth and boyhood sounds extremely close to the story of Moses, another “birth of a hero” myth. (The following is an abbreviated version of his life). A prophecy foretold that a boy would be born who would be the “killer of kings”. The current king, who was also is uncle I believe, decreed that Kam be killed. So he was “abandoned” to a childless couple that raised him as their own. Later on he was allowed back into the court by his uncle and he eventually became king after his uncle died.
I saw a children’s book in a bookstore a while back that talked about this “great king”. The story was almost exactly like the story of Moses in the Bible. It was so close that I now wonder if perhaps his birth and childhood were rewritten in Hawaiian history after the Christian missionaries came. It would make a powerful message for the people to be associated with a great Biblical leader, even if the people didn’t immediately convert to Christianity.
The Myth of the Birth of the Hero is an interesting site about a book that discusses the similarity of mythical and legendary heroes around the world; surprisingly (or not) many heroes have the same type of childhood: born to parents who couldn’t care for him for some reason, either given to or found by a childless couple who then raise the boy as their own, the boy performs great deeds as he grows up, and when an adult he becomes a king or other legendary figure.
Another aspect of King Kam is the fact that he wasn’t as benevolent a ruler as everyone believes. First off, he was quite blood thirsty when it came to “uniting” the Hawaiian islands. Like nearly every other king in history, he achieved his land grab by force, killing most resistance and even attacking his cousins. He used Western weapons to help achieve this by buying guns and ammunition from British and American traders. The Pali Lookout in the middle of Oahu is a famous landmark where King Kam pushed more than 400 men over a cliff. Needless to say, the resistance against King Kam and his dreams of glory was quite stiff but eventually failed. King Kam did unite the islands under his kingdom but the cost in lives was quite large.
The Hawaiian monarchy, like many others, ended up creating a class system with the working poor supporting the desires of the aristocrats. The Kings and Queens lived in luxury while the average citizen lived in comparative squalor. The government was corrupt (and still is in many aspects); as Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. writes, “[King] Kalakaua had repeatedly thrown out cabinets which refused to sign his legislative proposals, and had openly bribed both elected Representatives and appointed Nobles, running the government as though he was a tin-horn dictator.” The so-called “Bayonet Constitution” was designed to fix the corruption and limit the powers of the King.
The final overthrow of Queen Lili’uokalani was, according to Dr. Conklin, “was precipitated by her publicly announced intention to unilaterally proclaim a new constitution, violating the existing constitution she had sworn to uphold. Her new constitution would have restored strong powers to the monarch, including undoing the reforms of the constitution of 1887. Her attempt to unilaterally proclaim a new constitution was a naked grab for power, and an act of treason; and it was the immediate precipitating cause of her overthrow.” The US military was indeed in port at the time of the overthrow but was not involved in the action, contrary to popular thought. The coup, such as it was, was instigated by the local militia.
That’s about all I will say on this matter but I encourage you to read Dr. Conklin’s information. I’ve found corroborating information from other sources so I believe that Dr. Conklin has a better grasp of the “real” history vs. what is taught in the local schools. Though many will say Dr. Conklin is biased, I would say the local information is even more so; intelligent discussion on the matter is rarely allowed here. Heck, even the King Kam statue can’t be used in parody ads without getting people pissed off, even though US President’s are used in parodies all the time.
