This blog is about Hawaii's status as an independent country under prolonged illegal occupation by the United States, and the history, culture, law & politics of the islands.
I posted the first two installments of this series from the Hawaii Independent, but are all 5 parts.
As one of the 154 kānaka maoli who agreed to participate in the state-sponsored, Naʻi Aupuni-initiated Native Hawaiian ʻAha, Kaʻiulani Milham had a front row seat at the month-long proceedings. What follows a multi-part, first-hand account that highlights various and consistent affronts to democratic processes that ruled during the ʻAha proceedings.
“A POWER IN THE WORLD”: THE HAWAIIAN KINGDOM AS A MODEL OF HYBRID STATECRAFT IN OCEANIA AND A PROGENITOR OF PAN-OCEANIANISM
By Lorenz Gonschor
Political Science
In the nineteenth century, the Hawaiian Kingdom became the first, and for a long time only, non- Western state to achieve full recognition as a co-equal of the Western powers. Technologically at the cutting edge of modernity but at the same time grounded in aboriginal tradition and identity, the Kingdom was an archetypical example of a hybrid state. While knowledge of this has been all but erased due to the on-going occupation of Hawai‘i by the United States, it has recently resurfaced thanks to the work of various Hawaiian scholars. Most remarkable, the Kingdom’s leaders, including monarchs, government officials and diplomats, used their country’s secured political status to promote the building of independent states on its model throughout the Pacific Islands, and envisioned a unified Oceania. Such a pan-Oceanian polity would be able to withstand foreign colonialism and be, in the words of one of the idea’s pioneers “a Power in the World.” While the islands of Oceania did eventually succumb to colonialism, and the Hawaiian Kingdom itself was invaded and occupied, the legacy of this visionary policy can be seen in many aspects of Oceania today and can serve today as an inspiration and guideline for envisioning de-colonial futures for the Pacific region. Within this context, the dissertation examines and analyses two intertwined processes: First, the evolution of the Hawaiian Kingdom from its classical predecessors to the exemplary hybrid state in Oceania and the dissemination and institutional transfer of this model to other Pacific archipelagos; and secondly, the development of a Hawai‘i-based pan-Oceanianist policy and underlying ideology, which provided the rationale for the spread of the Hawaiian political model to be actively promoted by the Kingdom’s government. This historical narrative is put in perspective of the pan-Oceanianist writings of Epeli Hau‘ofa, current political moves towards more assertive Oceanian regionalism and the movement to de-occupy the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Monday, April 4, 2016
2pm to 4pm
Saunders 704
Department of Political Science, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
2424 Maile Way, Saunders 640, Honolulu, HI 96822-2223
NAʻI AUPUNI DECIDES NOT TO PURSUE RATIFICATION VOTE
Education and Ratification of Native Hawaiian Constitution Best Pursued by Broad-based Group
HONOLULU – Naʻi Aupuni said today it would not be conducting a ratification vote on the proposed constitution produced by the recently completed ‘aha. It believes that the ‘aha participants, who represent a diverse and multigenerational cross section of the Native Hawaiian leaders from Hawaii, the North American Continent, Asia and Europe, or a similarly broad-based group, would be the entity to best advance the ratification vote and conduct the important process of educating our communities about the constitution.
Whitewashed press releases, a sinister state bill and a flippant disregard for the rules of the convention
Editor’s note: As one of the 154 kānaka maoli who agreed to participate in the state-sponsored, Naʻi Aupuni-initiated Native Hawaiian ʻAha, Kaʻiulani Milham had a front row seat at the month-long proceedings. What follows is the second installment of a multi-part, first-hand account that highlights various and consistent affronts to democratic processes that ruled during the ʻAha proceedings. Read Part I here.
The vivacious Makalehua group’s “In it to win it” mantra came into play in important ways during the second week of the ʻAha.
But what exactly was the “it” they were in it to win?
Setting up shop in a side room off the main meeting hall, Makalehua members installed a pair of privately-owned printers—Naʻi Aupuni officials neglected to foresee that drafting a constitution would necessitate such things as printers and paper—to produce early drafts of documents and hana ka hana (work the work) of the ʻAha.
In the midst of this hurried activity, Makalehua member Makana Paris, the ʻAha’s vice chair, was overheard whispering that certain participants had been appointed to an ʻAha communications team, which would be in charge of disseminating information about the ʻAha to the public. Having committed to fostering an atmosphere of free prior and informed consent during the nation-building exercise, the fact that the members of this important team seemed to have been decided on without the participation of the plenary was concerning.
Published on Mar 8, 2016
February 1, 2016 at Lyman Museum in Hilo, Dr. Sai lectured on Hawaii’s relationship with the British starting with Captain Cook, through Captain George Vancouver and also Davis & Young
Editor’s note: As one of the 154 kānaka maoli who agreed to participate in the state-sponsored, Naʻi Aupuni-initiated Native Hawaiian ʻAha, Kaʻiulani Milham had a front row seat at the month-long proceedings. What follows is the first installment of a multi-part, first-hand account that highlights various and consistent affronts to democratic processes that ruled during the ʻAha proceedings.
Despite heavy opposition from federal recognition advocates and an agenda deliberately primed to produce a federal recognition-friendly constitution, Hawaiian independence advocates at the Native Hawaiian Convention, better known as the ʻAha, succeeded in planting a stake in the ground for the “pursuit of independence.”
For Jade Danner, a staunch proponent of federal recognition, those three words—hard won additions to the draft constitution’s preamble—were a stake to the heart. According to Katie Kamelamela, one of two appointed sergeants-at-arms during the ʻAha, the words sent her “crying like a little bitch” to the parking lot.
Independence advocates knew the stakes going in.
They knew that independence is an option in diametric opposition to the interests of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) and they knew that, after a decade of failure to secure federal recognition through the Akaka Bill, OHA was desperate for a win.
Twice in recent years, at the 1999 ʻAha Hawaiʻi ʻOiwi (AHO) and again at the 2000 Ha Hawaiʻi conventions, OHA had withheld funding after the elected delegates determined to pursue independence.
