Dueling Historians: Debating the Overthrow I
Price of Paradise · Hawaii Public Radio · aired 1997-09-07
Guests: Thurston Twigg-Smith (descendant of Lorrin A. Thurston; former owner of The Honolulu Advertiser); Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor (Professor of Ethnic Studies, University of Hawaii)
Duration: 1:00:31

[00:00:02] Randall Roth: Aloha, this is Randy Roth, host of the Price of Paradise show. We're broadcast live Sunday mornings on KHPR and KKUA and then rebroadcast Sunday evenings beginning at 8:00 on KIFO. Everyone who works to bring this program to you is a volunteer who believes in the importance of lively and informed public dialogue. We believe the brightness of any community's future is directly related to the level of activity in its marketplace of ideas. Our show this morning has to do with history, specifically the events surrounding the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. We have two people in the studio this morning who don't necessarily agree with each other's description and or interpretation of those events.
[00:00:41] Randall Roth: Their names are Thurston "Twig" Smith and Davianna McGregor. Davianna is a historian of Hawaii and the Pacific, whose articles have been published in the Hawaiian Journal of History and the Journal of Pacific History. She is the editor of an ethnic studies textbook entitled, "Our History, Our Way," an ethnic studies anthology. Currently, she's an associate professor in the University of Hawaii Ethnic Studies Department. She has worked on cultural assessment projects involving subsistence practices on Molokai, geothermal energy in Puna, and South Maui, and the historic cultural landscape in Kane'ohe, Waimanalo. Davianna also is an active member of the protect, I'm sorry, Davianna, Ka Huli Ao, and served as vice chair of the Hawaiian Sovereignty Elections Council.
[00:01:35] Randall Roth: Davianna, good morning.
[00:01:36] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Good morning, Aloha.
[00:01:37] Randall Roth: Thurston "Twig" Smith is a fifth-generation local boy who got his early education in Honolulu's public schools, Lincoln, Kaimuki, and Roosevelt before getting a full scholarship to Punahou in the 10th grade. He went on to Yale with another full scholarship and worked after classes to cover other expenses. He's a former newspaperman, but nowadays describes himself as just a part-time philanthropist and amateur historian who's writing a book about sovereignty. Regular listeners know that we use first names on this show, but I plan to call Thurston Twig Smith, Twig, because that's what his friends call him, Twig, is that okay?
[00:02:10] Thurston Twigg-Smith: That's fine, Randy.
[00:02:11] Randall Roth: Okay. A basic assumption is that Davianna and Twig don't agree completely on what actually happened at the time of the overthrow, or at a minimum, they don't agree on the proper interpretation of those events. During the next hour, we intend to identify those differences and give each of them ample opportunity to win over listeners. We'll start by giving each a minute or so to describe generally how they think today's conversation ought to be framed. That'll be followed by 15 or 20 minutes of give and take, and we'll explain a little bit more about that in a minute. And then listeners will be invited to join in the conversation by phone.
[00:02:46] Randall Roth: In order for the give and take portion of the show to work properly, each guest will need to yield the floor after making a single point. In other words, we don't want speeches, we don't want somebody making four or five or six points, each will make a point and then the other will have an opportunity to respond to that. Well, with that rather lengthy introduction, Davi, why don't we start with you and in a minute or so, what do you think today's conversation ought to be about?
[00:03:13] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Well, actually, I believe that the debate on what was the role of the United States in the overthrow of of the Hawaiian monarchy, the illegal invasion of Hawaii by the United States, and overthrow of a thriving Hawaiian monarchy, the debate on that is really over with the passage of Public Law 103-150 or what is called the Apology Law. And a lot of the efforts today should be looked at, what are the that that has served as the basis for reconciliation efforts, including the repatriation of the crown and government lands of the Kingdom of Hawaii, which rightfully belong to the native Hawaiian people.
[00:03:52] Randall Roth: Okay, and I'm taking some notes here, and some of the points that I I think I've heard, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the overthrow was illegal, the monarchy was was thriving at the time of the overthrow, that the debate as to whether it was proper, improper, legal, illegal, really ought to be over because of what you're calling the apology law. And I know from Twig's piece in the paper this morning, his description might be a little bit different, but you're saying it should be over because of the apology law.
[00:04:19] Randall Roth: That is as ended, you know, once and for all, and no uncertain terms, just what actually happened and what its its meaning is. And then finally you use you use the term repatriation, which I think is is what some people would refer to as as part of the sovereignty process.
[00:04:33] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Yes, that's correct.
[00:04:34] Randall Roth: Okay, so that's more or less, um, what we ought to be doing.
[00:04:38] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Yes.
[00:04:39] Randall Roth: Twig, you can, uh, comment on that or better yet, why don't you start by saying what you think this conversation ought to be all about?
[00:04:45] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Well, I think that they I would like to think that the thing was already behind us and decided, that is the question of where responsibility lay and all that, but I'm afraid it isn't, and I'm sure we'll be discussing that as we go along. I would hope that one thing we can do is to keep race racial feelings out of it. There's certainly no racism in my mind on it. I sometimes people think I'm painted into a corner where I'm anti-Hawaiian, or my grandfather was anti-Hawaiian, and that's certainly not the case.
[00:05:10] Thurston Twigg-Smith: In his case, for example, he was one of the commissioners who went to Washington and succeeded in getting our Hawaiian lands, our ceded lands, set aside in a form of trust for the benefit of all the residents out here, otherwise, we wouldn't be here talking about what the whether the ceded lands were available or not available. And I would like to see us make the point that they they agree on the point that the ceded lands were not stolen. I think that uh there's too much talk about that, too much painting Hawaiians as victims. That's the kind of thing I'd like to see us be able to dismiss this morning.
[00:05:42] Randall Roth: Okay, so again, let me see if I've got this straight. Point number one is that it would be nice if the discussion of what actually happened and what it means was behind us, but you think probably the discussion of who is responsible and what it means is is not behind us, and that probably that's going to be coming up more this morning. Right. Secondly, that your hope is that race won't be at the center of this conversation, that that it really shouldn't be an us versus them sort of thing. Right.
[00:06:09] Randall Roth: Thirdly, that you are the direct descendant of somebody who was at the center of the overthrow, um, your grandfather, I believe, and you're saying that you're not anti-Hawaiian. I think you're suggesting he wasn't anti-Hawaiian, uh, and that this conversation really shouldn't be seen in terms of of anti-Hawaiian anything. And then finally, in my notes, I have that, uh, this discussion of ceded lands as as having been stolen, uh, is wrong and and perhaps makes the conversation harder to um to continue.
[00:06:40] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Yes.
[00:06:41] Randall Roth: Okay, decent summary?
[00:06:43] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Fine.
[00:06:44] Randall Roth: Okay, that's my job is to is to try to see if I can make sense of this and hopes that, uh, that listeners can, too. Davy, why don't you start by either taking a point that you didn't mention or one that you did and elaborate on it, or if there's something that Twig said that you'd like to take issue with, uh, it's the floor is yours.
[00:07:02] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Well, I'd like to qualify that the public law 103-150, or the Apology Law, was is a joint resolution of the House and Senate and was signed into law by President, uh, Clinton in November of 1993. And in the article this morning, uh, Twig says that um it's a resolution, therefore it's temporary and and can't uh permanently redefine history. But in fact, the um, the means by which Hawaii was annexed to the United States was through a joint resolution, the Newlands Resolution. And so, actually, the Newlands Resolution and the Apology Law have the same status in terms of of law and process within the US Congress.
[00:07:45] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: And the fact was that, you know, the um, the the proponents of annexation in 1898 lacked the um, ability to get two-thirds majority of the Senate, so they couldn't get a treaty passed. And so they had to settle for a joint resolution. And so in effect, if the Apology Law is only temporary and can't be used to define history, then the Newlands Resolution by which Hawaii was annexed also can be considered temporary in the same sense and can't be used to define history.
[00:08:12] Randall Roth: Okay, and just so our listeners understand what some people call the apology bill, and other people call the apology law, and in Twig's piece this morning, I believe he referred to it as the apology apology resolution, uh, that that was something that Congress and the President all agreed to in 1993, and so that's kind of at the center of our conversation. Twig, what do you have to say to Davianna's comments about it?
[00:08:34] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Well, Davey makes a point, but the thing that she's overlooking is that the Newland Resolution was followed up with the Organic Act. The the resolution itself opened the door toward annexation as I suppose the the apology resolution opens the door to the kinds of discussions we're having. But in itself didn't provide the admission of the, uh, Hawaii as a territory. They had to follow up with an act which is part of the law. Resolutions are temporary, they do fall by the wayside, they're not codified as a part of US law, and it's I think it's erroneous for this one to be assuming that kind of a status, the status as a law when it isn't.
[00:09:12] Randall Roth: Okay, so you would say call it what it is, a resolution, and recognize it for what it does, which is to start of conversation.
[00:09:19] Thurston Twigg-Smith: That's my point, yeah.
[00:09:20] Randall Roth: Davianna.
[00:09:21] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Well, exactly the, um, apology law states what is the US position on the overthrow, that it admits blame in the overthrow, and it was the primary agent of the overthrow. And it says in the law that it provides the basis for reconciliation, and so the next step should be a law which will provide for sovereignty for native Hawaiians, including the return of the lands which the uh provisional government stole from the Hawaiian Kingdom.
[00:09:49] Randall Roth: Okay, let's let's shift gears just a little bit, and Twig, I'm going to invite you to either elaborate on something that's been said, or to address, um, something that Davianna said that you'd like to take issue with.
[00:10:00] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Ah, yes, I'd like to follow up one moment on that, on the resolution, because I think there's a confusion between what a resolution seeks to accomplish with its clauses at the end and what, uh, is stated in the whereas clauses of a resolution. This apology resolution has 37 whereas clauses and I would find fault with but maybe half of those that are really not statements of fact, but there was no public hearing ever held to determine whether those words were actual historical facts.
[00:10:27] Thurston Twigg-Smith: So, for us to say now they were sanctified by the Congress having passed them is to say anything that anybody puts in the whereas clauses of a resolution when that resolution gets passed, it's suddenly history of the land, and I just don't think that's true. This resolution, if it's pursued further, we'll have to consider the truth of some of those whereas clauses. I have them all listed here, and in fact one whole chapter in the book I'm writing is devoted to this subject, and there's lots of room for controversy on those and it's just a totally one-sided affair.
[00:10:58] Randall Roth: Okay, well I've got to give Davianna an opportunity to respond to that. Davianna, it's my understanding that you were very much involved in helping to write those whereas clauses, is that correct?
[00:11:06] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: That's correct.
[00:11:07] Randall Roth: Uh, why don't you respond to what Twig has just said and then we'll shift gears and go to another issue.
[00:11:12] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Well, yeah, earlier I had invited Twig to a teachers institute we had on history and he made the same point and I said, well, we could back up every single whereas clause, um, it's been thoroughly researched. And not only that, I, as I print out in the article, the we have the um, President's report to Congress in 1893, which is based on the Blount Report, and we have the Morgan report, uh, which was of the um, Senate um, Formulations Committee.
[00:11:40] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: And the record sort of stayed open for a long time and and the Native Hawaiian Studies Commission went through all the islands and then they said, well the truth lies somewhere in between, so it still was open. Then in the 19 um 80s and uh early 1990s, Congress passed several laws which gave uh uh benefits to Native Hawaiians, the Native Hawaiian Education Act, the Native Hawaiian Health Care Act, all of which had hearings. And in those laws, um, they they pretty much had the same type of summary of history and it just got put together and uh codified in a sense in the apology law.
[00:12:15] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: So the earlier laws and those the review of that history has had a lot of review over the hundred years that it took to pass it finally, and including um in the laws relating to Native Hawaiian Education Act and the Native Hawaiian Healthcare Act.
[00:12:29] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Well, just a short one short comment on that is that it would be nice if the resolution, I mean it might be acceptable if the resolution was somewhere between the Blount report and the Morgan report, but if you look closely at it, it's totally Blount report. None of Morgan's conclusions are included in there.
[00:12:45] Randall Roth: And what you're referring to is is right after the overthrow, there were two different reports that were radically different, or reached very different conclusions.
[00:12:52] Thurston Twigg-Smith: And conducted in radically different manners, I mean Blount was a secret report with no sworn testimony or very little.
[00:12:58] Randall Roth: And his was the one that that supported what might be described as the Hawaii today's Hawaiian view of it.
[00:13:02] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Exactly right, and it was certainly and it was the only source that Cleveland had at the time, but mind you, at the time, the Cleveland made his message to Congress, the provisional government hadn't even seen the Blount report, so there was no way of of getting to Cleveland and say, look, you're you're making an erroneous statement here or about to make an erroneous statement.
[00:13:24] Randall Roth: Well, Davi, you started what we're on right now, and if you want the last word on it, it's yours, but then I'm going to ask Twig to to bring up a different issue.
[00:13:31] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Um, only that, he said that it was conducted in radically different ways and I agree with that. And to me, the main difference is not that it was secret, but the main difference was that Blount came out and spent two months in Hawaii, meeting with both royalists and annexationists, whereas Morgan spent two months in Washington, DC, only listening to one point of view, which was the annexationist point of view, did receive some petitions sent from Hawaii, but never really came out to Hawaii to look at the both sides of the issue.
[00:14:00] Randall Roth: Okay. Twig, can we can we focus on something else?
[00:14:03] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Well, actually, the, I think we're getting close to focusing on Blount and Morgan, and I think that that's something worth continue a little bit of discussion on because it's important that people realize that even though Blount was out here, he didn't give everybody an opportunity to testify. He selected those whom he wanted to listen to. The Morgan report on the other hand is made up of testimony at public hearings in Washington, everyone was invited, due to the distance, not everybody came, but everybody who wanted to could submit a sworn statement, had to be a sworn statement.
[00:14:36] Thurston Twigg-Smith: So there was no way that people were being excluded, whereas in the case of Blount, he came out, he wouldn't talk, he talked to only two members of the committee of 13 and neither was in a leadership position. He didn't talk to any of the leaders of the provisional government. They gave him a long list of people who knew what the problem was and why the revolution had occurred, but he didn't seem to be interested in finding out the background of the revolution. He was there with a single purpose, which was to attempt to reinstate the Queen.
[00:15:03] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Well, its purpose was not to reinstate the Queen. I think it was surprising to everyone that the conclusion was that the Queen should be reinstated. Uh, I think the the Blount report was uh he did make an effort to listen to both sides, and came up with a report that did look at the issues and what were the conditions leading up to um the overthrow in in a broad uh historical sense.
[00:15:27] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: He he didn't only look at the immediate events, but at the political-economic changes, the changes the the fact that the sugar economy had uh displaced the Hawaiian people and um there were a number of causes that led up to the conditions that we had in 1893.
[00:15:44] Randall Roth: Okay. Um, Twig, something that Davianna said initially was that the monarchy was thriving at the time of the overthrow. And I think from your piece in the paper this morning, you would take issue with that.
[00:15:56] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Right, it wasn't thriving, and a lot and a lot of that was due to the Queen herself, but also a lot of it was due to the conditions that were prevailing at the time. The the population was dwindling rapidly through uh reasons that people couldn't stop entirely, and certainly not the fault of either party. But the uh economic condition of the kingdom was going downhill. Uh there were threats from all kinds of external forces, different countries were eyeing uh Hawaii as a potential colonial acquisition. So the kingdom was in anything but, uh, prime shape at that point.
[00:16:30] Randall Roth: Um, Davianna, if if you want to respond to that, you can, if you want to shift to a different topic, you can. We're just we've got about five more minutes of going back and forth, you've got the floor.
[00:16:40] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Well, um, I think again, it's it's looking at the point of view. Certainly, the sugar planners were not thriving because the US had just passed the McKinley tariff in 1891, and it had just devastated the sugar economy. But the subsistence Hawaiian farmers and fishermen were not impacted by the McKinley tariff, and they were not, they didn't feel compelled to have to make such changes as to seek annexation to the United States in order to be economically well off and to protect their livelihoods. But I'd like to shift the issue to the crown lands and the government lands and why we say they are stolen.
[00:17:15] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: And the fact is that the that the system of land in Hawaii was agreed to by the King of Hawaii and the privy Council, Council of Chiefs. And it was, while Western in the main, also had some distinctively Hawaiian um features to it. And, um, one of which was what I mentioned in my article, that the native Hawaiian gathering rights were still protected, but another was that the crown lands were set aside for the crown for the monarchy. And, um, there was also a large amount of government lands. So, uh, at the time that Hawaii was eventually annexed, there was still 1.8 million acres of crown and government land.
[00:17:54] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: And the Queen herself had gone to Congress saying making a claim that the crown lands were rightfully belonging to the monarchy and should be given uh to her, assigned to her. And she also went to court and a US court ruled that that no, it would not be given over to the Queen. Um, yet the claims remain to to the Hawaiian people unresolved. that the provisional government had no right to then take over the lands that belonged to the to the monarchy and to the to the Hawaiian Chiefs that was set aside as the crown lands, nor the government lands of the Kingdom of Hawaii.
[00:18:27] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: And that's what was turned over illegally to the US government.
[00:18:31] Thurston Twigg-Smith: That's that is a good point to talk about because that there is no indication in anything that you said that those were stolen. I mean the lands were still there, the lands came from the king Kamehameha III in what, 1848 or so and he set them aside as government lands, and then 1865 they added the crown lands to that, and those became what we call the ceded lands. Those lands went from monarch to monarch without being considered to be stolen by the successor monarch. They went to the provisional government which succeeded the monarchy. They weren't stolen by that government. They were just the custodians of it.
[00:19:03] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Same people were working in the Department of Land for the provisional government that had been there under the monarchy. And when the Republic came along, the lands moved to the Republic and then when we became a territory, they became under the trust of the United States for a period of time. But it stayed with they all came back to us. So those lands cannot conceivably talked about as stolen and and and in the apology resolution you do say that they were stolen, they were taken without their consent.
[00:19:30] Thurston Twigg-Smith: But there's no evidence, there's no indication anywhere along the land and you've touched on it that any individual ever owned any portion of those lands. They never consented that the lands are not going to go from Kalakaua to Liliuokalani or Liliuokalani to the provisional government just the same move, just an administrative maneuver there. The lands are still throwing off benefits for Hawaiians and all the other residents of the state.
[00:19:54] Randall Roth: Um David I'll give you an opportunity to respond to that, but I want to let anyone who tuned in late know that they're listening to the price of Paradise radio show. My name is Randy Roth. We're discussing the events surrounding the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. Um now is the time in the show that we invite calls. If you'd like to ask a question or make a comment, our number is 955-8821. If you're on a neighbor island, the number is 1-800-955-8821. Uh David, did you want to comment on Twigg's last remark or if you'd like to shift gears and bring another topic up before we go to our callers, that'd be fine too.
[00:20:29] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Well, I think it goes to the heart of the difference in our analysis, that I don't think the provisional government was a legal government. It had no right to quote succeed. In fact it didn't say that it succeeded. It it wrenched the the government away from the Hawaiian monarchy. It was a a serious and and a radical break in the whole continuity of Hawaiian kingdom and the Hawaiian monarchy.
[00:20:51] Randall Roth: It wasn't negotiated, it wasn't a friendly process.
[00:20:53] Thurston Twigg-Smith: It was a it was a revolution.
[00:20:56] Randall Roth: So both of you agree that that it was a revolution. It was an act of war, I suppose.
[00:21:00] Thurston Twigg-Smith: I don't think it was an act of war unless you consider every revolution an act of war. But I think it was a a declaration of independence, so to speak by the residents here who were concerned about the way the government was headed. And this wasn't just Hawaiians. They were, I mean, not just non-Hawaiians. They were Hawaiians involved in criticism of the queen in the 1890s, 91, 92.
[00:21:20] Randall Roth: And that goes back to your point that race shouldn't be at the center of this.
[00:21:23] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Right, it was everybody's problem, not just one one racist problem.
[00:21:28] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Well, it it certainly was not a revolution because it didn't have the support of the mass of the Hawaiian people who were the mass of the citizens of the kingdom. And even in the petition that was sent to the Morgan Committee from Hawaii by the Hawaiian people, they pointed out they had 8,000 uh people who were part of the Huia Hawaii, the Hawaiian Patriotic League and they were all voters out of 13,000 voters. So 8,000 people out of 13,000 registered voters opposed the provisional government the Republic of Hawaii and annexation.
[00:21:58] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: So by no means could you say it was a revolution. It was more essentially a a coup demain. It was it was as small as the Hawaiian people put it a small cabal of conspirators who took over the monarchy.
[00:22:10] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Well, there was a point you made recall that right after the queen tried to proclaim her new constitution in in on July January 14th there, 1893, when uh even her own cabinet was willing to rebel against her, they came to see the mass meeting that was developing downtown to tell them that the queen was engaged in a revolutionary act. trying to promote promulgate this new constitution and they wanted to know if the community would support them if they, Hawaiians, were to depose the queen. And that doesn't get much play in current histories. I'm wondering if it appears in the histories you're writing nowadays for kids to read.
[00:22:49] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Well I I think the queen was betrayed by many people Hawaii some a few Hawaiians and mostly foreigners, but she also trusted very much the missionary um descendants who were her advisors and they betrayed her frankly.
[00:23:01] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Well, frankly, they uh equally frankly, they they tried to help her. I mean, they were LA Thurson for example who sometimes painted as the villain uh in this thing was very strong monarchist all through his career until the time of the reform Constitution 1887. And he had many on many occasions he and other people tried to get the monarchy to recognize that they couldn't go the way of absolute independent monarchies in that day's world. Monarchies all over the world were beginning to rein in their demands to become constitutional, almost democratic monarchies as the British are today.
[00:23:37] Thurston Twigg-Smith: And Hawaii's monarchs were just too, shall we say, stubborn to recognize that that was the only way to survive. And that same stubbornness led to her loss of support from uh Cleveland when she decided to have everybody beheaded instead of offering amnesty to the revolutionaries.
[00:23:53] Randall Roth: Daviana give you the last word and then I'm gonna go to callers.
[00:23:55] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Oh, I I think those who were seeking to overthrow the monarchy and annex Hawaii to the United States were clearly motivated by profit interests that, you know, what was at stake was the the sugar profits and and nothing more.
[00:24:07] Thurston Twigg-Smith: I can Let me just interrupt. I can't leave that dangling. The sugar people were opposed to annexation. They were not part of this whole thing. There were no sugar plantation owners in the revolutionary group.
[00:24:18] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Oh, I think I've seen a list written by your own grandfather which included a number of plantation owners.
[00:24:23] Thurston Twigg-Smith: No, they they owned a few shares of stock, but they were not plantation operators or owners. The sugar people I think you'll agree were opposed to annexation. Spark all all the British people. It wasn't until after annexation that they realized that annexation was a marvelous break for the sugar industry because it brought us closer to the hierarchy and in Washington and and enabled us to argue right in the spot for tariffs that would benefit sugar. but they opposed it up bitter up to the bitter end.
[00:24:51] Randall Roth: Speaking of break, it's my turn to break from this interesting give and take and go to callers. Let's start with Steve from Honolulu. Good morning, Steve.
[00:24:57] Caller: Uh first of all, I want to compliment you. I think it's a fascinating program. I think your participants are knowledgeable and I just think it's a great thing. I wish this program would last several hours because you got hours and hours. It's really good stuff. Uh I rather than comment on either side, I'd like to comment on the process.
[00:25:11] Caller: And I think it's interesting because I I know a lot of people wonder, well why do we study history? And we have the the famous quote from Henry Ford, the history is bunk and so on and so forth. And I think this is a your program is an excellent illustration about the importance of history to lives. Um secondly, I I would like to make this point and hear people bounce off it. I think if somebody said, what's the most important feature of history beyond the sort of legal presence and arguments about laws and so on. I I think it is to to give identity.
[00:25:40] Caller: People gain their identity through their history. Obviously, one of the people participating today who had a family member direct linked to events is in by by way of his explanation of what's going on, defining his own identity today. Another one of our participants, who also has a very committed viewpoint and a a a sense of of of connection with some of the people who are involved in these events is I think redefining or defining or putting in clarity her identity. And so I think the real function of what's going on here in the long term is the definition of one's own identity through history. I I really salute you for for this contribution.
[00:26:19] Randall Roth: Thank you, Steven. Your comment is is an excellent one. I've got every line is No, no, no. I got it. I appreciate it. Well, I'll tell you what. I'm going to give them an opportunity to respond in a minute but I want to hear a couple more voices. Uh let's go to Dave from Kailua. Good morning, Dave.
[00:26:33] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Good morning, Randy. Uh I'd like to follow up and uh on the on the on Steve's comment and but focus a little bit more on process. Uh I think the problems that we're trying to address really relate to the processes that have been applied in the past and and what will lead us into the future. Uh I'd like to hear um both address that and and particularly Mr. uh Twigsmith uh in in in regard to the process that uh he might be be suggesting because I'm hearing mostly apology and and sort of uh rationalization of how you deal with the uh past history and not too much about where we go in the future.
[00:27:17] Randall Roth: Okay, let's let's ask him that question why Before before you do that, Dave. Okay. Let's let me let me come back to you. I want to take them one at a time. Uh the question is, you know, where do we go from here?
[00:27:28] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Yeah, it's a little uh well I think we go back to the history books since it's a little scary, I must say, Davi, to think that that that you're writing all the history books for the people of the state because they to me they're going to come out kind of one-sided. How do we go about getting both sides expressed so that uh or at least available so that students have a chance to weigh these things for themselves and don't have to accept exactly what they read in the book. And that that part worries me a little bit. I I I'll the I'll drop that there.
[00:27:56] Randall Roth: Uh Davi do you want to comment and then I'll go back to Dave.
[00:27:58] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Oh, by no means are we only presenting one side. I think we we put present both I produce I do present both sides and what's the rationale. Because I think you cannot really understand one side of the issue unless you know if you are able to understand the other side and be able to critique it. I mean it it's it's it's useless to argue against a straw argument because it's weak. And so, um I like probably on Monday I'll take in your article and my article and share it with my students and ask them to engage in a lively discussion about it.
[00:28:30] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: And I do and if you read my my dissertation, my my work, um I do point out that so say someone like Robert Wilcox who's always painted as a revolutionary in the Hawaiian sense, even at one time himself advocated for annexation and a Republic. Um and and was, you know, at one time found himself at odds with the queen. So by no means are my playing it as one sided. But uh I think for the most part the queen did have the support of the majority of people and that what happened was against the interest of Hawaiian people and they pretty much articulated that at the time and continue to do so now.
[00:30:27] Thurston Twigg-Smith: So I guess early from your earlier comments about the apology resolution being the end all and that I believe is one-sided. That's why I got in. Let's go back.
[00:30:36] Randall Roth: On the line, Dave, you had another point you wanted to make?
[00:30:38] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Yeah, I I'm quite concerned that, you know, in this process, uh discussion that, you know, where is the ethical and and moral foundation for it for us to move forward. Uh this overthrow was oriented in large part as I think has been already accepted on the basis of economic need and, you know, people really were focusing on how to make money and work in the system.
[00:31:01] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Today we sit here in our own, you know, form of economic malaise and, you know, in the midst of this social, uh uncertainty about how is the land issue is going to be decided. How how is this all going to work out in the uh, in, in the big picture. And and and I keep on hearing Mr. Twigsmith going back to arguing the fine points of debate, which I think are are necessary, but I think they were maybe necessary a little further back. I mean, he's trying to catch the horse after it's out of the barn.
[00:31:31] Randall Roth: Okay, let's let's give him an opportunity to explain that and and then I have to move on, but Dave, I appreciate your call this morning.
[00:31:36] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Yeah, I I don't think the overthrow is at all simply a matter of economics. I those people were doing no better after their revolution than they were before it economically, but what they were lacking before the revolution, and the thing that impelled them is what impelled the American revolutionists. They wanted freedom. They were after another form of government than a monarchy.
[00:31:57] Thurston Twigg-Smith: To me, it's as simple as that. Do you want it? And they said that. And sometimes you want to go forward under a queen who we don't know what direction she's going to go. She's trying to go toward a more absolute monarchy or do we make the break now and go toward freedom to annexation with the United States where everyone will get the vote. All that kind of thing.
[00:32:15] Randall Roth: Let's go to Paul in Nuuanu. Good morning, Paul.
[00:32:18] Caller: Hi, good morning. Thanks for taking me on the air. Mhm. Um I've had the privilege of befriending John Kelly who has spent his whole life as an activist uh educating young children and and kids about what's really happened uh in the history of of of Hawaii and the tremendous uh injustices that have occurred. Um which is obviously up to debate right now. But um my question is about the vagrancy laws specifically. Um I've been told I'm not sure what year this was said it, but um a person walking around Honolulu would have to give a good description of themselves where where they worked, where they're from.
[00:32:57] Caller: And when all the land was um all the fish ponds and taro fields were filled in by all the coral spoils that was used to sell to people from the West so that they could build their homes in Honolulu, a lot of people were put in jail and then supposedly their labor was used to build the roads from the sugar mills to the shipping ports. I would like for each of you to um Okay. Can we Can we get a a brief response, Daviana?
[00:33:24] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Uh vagrancy law came into effect about 1846 and it um I haven't heard no that noted that they were put to work on the roads. What they were required to do was go to work on the plantation and uh they could keep four-fifths of their wage and one-fifth would go to the government.
[00:33:41] Randall Roth: Um doesn't sound like too high a tax rate to me but uh Twigg Well, it was a whole lot better than the old days before the before the Mahalle where they worked two days one day for the King and one day for the Konohiki, their landlord, and the other three days they could work for themselves. That was a pretty high rate of tax too. Uh Paul, thanks for your call. We go to Michael from Hali'imaile. Good morning, Michael.
[00:34:02] Caller: Oh yeah, hi, Hali'imaile. Uh I'm just okay. I've got a a thought. Uh the trade and non-intercourse act of of 1790 defined how the United States was to treat with its aboriginal citizens. I'd like to know uh uh in the way uh uh the why doesn't uh pertain to here.
[00:34:33] Thurston Twigg-Smith: I think part of the problem is that we're still debating about whether Hawaiians are Native Americans or not and and even in the apology resolution that came up and at that point uh Senator Noe said that particular resolution had nothing to do with it but uh there is a concern that Hawaiians because they were aboriginal at some point to somewhere they were indigenous to Hawaii.
[00:34:56] Thurston Twigg-Smith: But the difficulty, the technical problem is that they weren't indigenous to the Republic, the the their their claim would be against the Republic of Hawaii. When the Republic of Hawaii annexed itself to the United States or offered itself for annexation, it did it on behalf of all its citizens who included any Hawaiians who had sworn allegiance to it and there were some. And that's so the Hawaiians that came in at that point and became citizens of the United States were not coming in as overthrown conquered victims of the United States, they were coming in as free citizens of the Republic of Hawaii, and they gained all the benefits the United States had to offer.
[00:35:33] Thurston Twigg-Smith: in opposition to what happened to the Indians who the US sent out armies to conquer them and that's why they had to have that that act that you speak of.
[00:35:41] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Any thoughts? Um well, brings up an interesting point because when the United States was expanding westward, say for example that the Louisiana purchase took over from France, the middle part of the United States or the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo settled from Mexico, the southwestern part of US.
[00:36:03] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Um that still was what was still outstanding was the relationship to the Native Americans and so they didn't assume that because they had made a treaty with Mexico to get southwest US, that they had resolved the issues with the or the Navajo people or the Hopi and there were separate treaties and and negotiated with the Hopi and with the with the Dene and they have separate standing and sovereign status today.
[00:36:27] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: But with the in the case of Hawaii, as Twigg just pointing out, it was the Republic that ceded itself to the US and gave up whatever rights it had claimed as of 1894 to Hawaii but there's never been any way in which to recognize and resolve what is the status and the standing of the Native Hawaiian people and the Native Hawaiian people have never agreed formally to be part of the United States. There was never any referendum, never any plebiscite in which the Native Hawaiian people voted to be part of the United States and that is still an outstanding issue and for the Native Hawaiian people to decide.
[00:36:58] Randall Roth: Okay, Michael, does and and I'll come to you in a moment. Michael, does that respond to your question?
[00:37:03] Caller: Uh and and pretty much uh it's just that the trade and non-intercourse act, I said that uh all land transfer in between aboriginal citizens uh in any state or any member uh in any member of the United States was invalid unless approved by Congress. And and I don't think that that there has been a a single acre of land uh that has ever been uh uh uh uh to the transfer of the lands is is is all invalid. Well, I mean, I don't know of of a single acre that has ever been uh uh uh that has ever been approved by Congress.
[00:37:53] Randall Roth: Okay, let's let's let Twigg respond to that, Michael.
[00:37:57] Thurston Twigg-Smith: You know, I've kind of lost track where I was going at that at that.
[00:38:00] Randall Roth: I plan, I'm sorry to say it to our candy. Well, let's let's let that conversation stand as is, Michael, really appreciate your call. I want to let listeners know that this is the Price of Paradise radio show. We're discussing the events surrounding the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. With me in the studio is Daviana, um, Polmaai Kaa, um, McGregor. She is an associate professor of ethnic studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. A historian of Hawaii and the Pacific. She's one of the editors of the ethnic studies textbook, Our History, Our Way, an ethnic studies anthology.
[00:38:32] Randall Roth: She's a member of the Protect Kahoalave Ohana and Fund and served on the Hawaiian sovereignty Elections Council from 1993 to 1996. Her ongoing research endeavors to, um, to have focused on, let's see, it focuses on documenting the persistence of traditional Hawaiian cultural customs, beliefs and practices in rural Hawaiian communities. Also in the studio is Thurston Twigg Smith, a fifth generation local boy who got his early education in Honolulu's public schools, Lincoln, Capama and Roosevelt. Before getting a full scholarship to Punaho in the 10th grade, he went on to Yale with another full scholarship and worked after classes to cover other expenses.
[00:39:13] Randall Roth: He's a former newspaper man, and you know, Twig, that's kind of modest, a former newspaper man, uh, what owned the uh Honolulu advertiser for many years. But nowadays describes himself as a part-time philanthropist and amateur historian. Twig has a book about sovereignty that I think is is about to come out. We've got a number of people waiting, but if you'd like to get in line, our number is 955-8821, and we go to Brian from Honolulu. Good morning, Brian.
[00:39:40] Caller: Good morning.
[00:39:42] Randall Roth: You're on the air.
[00:39:42] Caller: Thank you very much. Um, Randy, you're doing a very good job. You got a tough subject. And I have my own radio show, so I know what it's like.
[00:39:49] Randall Roth: Okay.
[00:39:51] Caller: Um, I consider myself an amateur historian as well. And something that hasn't come up, um, Lily Okani, Queen Lily Okani kind of, uh, took over after, uh, King Kalakawa. And there were a lot of financial problems at that time. I've read several books about that. And I know that, um, the people locally were not really happy with what was going on with the uh with the kingdom. And there was a lot of controversy that that goes beyond politics. It was local, I'm just looking at the local end of it. Kalakawa wasted a lot of money, gave a lot to speckles and people like that, and and um, disappointed a lot of local people.
[00:40:37] Caller: And when that actual overthrow in 1893 came about, there were Hawaiians on both sides of that. That was not a a a racial thing at all, so I I kind of back twig on this. Okay. And I I like to, I like, I can't wait to read his book.
[00:40:53] Randall Roth: Okay. Because that's that's a side that hasn't been discussed much, and I think that's important too. Brian, we appreciate your call this morning.
[00:40:59] Caller: Thank you.
[00:41:00] Randall Roth: Um, Twigg, before we go to our next caller, when is your book coming out?
[00:41:03] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Well, it's I hope it'll come out this year, but knowing the vagaries of publishing, it'll probably be January.
[00:41:08] Randall Roth: Okay. Uh, we go to Robert from Mililani. Good morning, Robert.
[00:41:12] Caller: Good morning. Can you hear me?
[00:41:15] Randall Roth: We sure can, you're on the air.
[00:41:16] Caller: Oh, good, good. Uh, first off, I'd like to express my really sincere appreciation to Mr. Smith, Mr. Thurston Twigg Smith. Uh, I really appreciate the fact that you are speaking for a large majority of people here that have basically gone unheard. And, um, I read your article the first thing I woke up this morning in the newspaper, and that's why I'm really feel like I have to comment on this. And, uh, I guess I can if I could, I'd like to ask a question and it may throw throw you off a little bit.
[00:41:52] Caller: But how can the state subsidize the uh Hawaiian universe studies at the university with taxpayer dollars that basically would be considered treason in a lot of places because of what they're trying to teach to to their students. Which is, which I consider very uh uh threatening to the to the well-being of this island because they are teaching, in my opinion, they are teaching, uh, uh, hatred.
[00:42:30] Randall Roth: Robert, Robert, let me give my guest an opportunity to respond briefly, but as you've noted, it it doesn't go to the core of our conversation this morning, so I'm going to try to get moving, um, you know, back in the direction of of our announced topic. But it is on the periphery. Uh, let me give each guest an opportunity to comment on on your comment.
[00:42:49] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Well, I I would say that that certainly it looks like you're commenting a your comments are well based, but I think we'd have to recognize that we call the freedom of speech these days and and always have, and therefore we have to let the university express these ideas and I hope to be able to offset them with other people expressing their ideas. Now, I was encouraged this morning to hear that Davey say that the history books are not being entirely written only in the direction of the apology resolution, that there are going to be references to other sources so that the kids can get another side to this particular question.
[00:43:22] Randall Roth: Yeah, and Davianna and I don't want to imply anything with this, but just so listeners understand, you're not part of the Hawaiian Studies program at the university, I don't think. I think you're Ethnic Studies, which is is a very different group.
[00:43:35] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Yes, I'm in the Ethnic Studies department.
[00:43:37] Randall Roth: Any comments about Robert's comments about the Hawaiian Studies, uh, program?
[00:43:42] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Oh, well, I think the Hawaiian Studies department has, um, a lot of different viewpoints expressed within it, um, and, um, I agree with some and I disagree with with some also. I'm not I'm certainly not partial to them either.
[00:43:54] Randall Roth: Actually, you should be in politics, what a what a very diplomatic answer. Okay. Robert, thank you for your call. We move on to Mary from Honolulu. Good morning, Mary.
[00:44:02] Caller: Uh, good morning. You know, I'm sitting before a book entitled Unipa Five Days in the History of the Hawaiian Nation, and what I'm looking at are several pictures on page uh 87, for example. I see the Army of Hawaii listed, the first company, who have several sharp shooters. And I don't see any Hawaiian faces or Hawaiian names in there. There are approximately 49 individuals there who comprised the army that the provisional government organized to help carry off the overthrow. The other thing I'm looking at now is on page
[00:44:39] Randall Roth: Mary, Mary, let me and I'm going to come back to you. But on that one, are you suggesting that that race was very much a part of the circumstances of the overthrow, because that could...
[00:44:49] Caller: Here is my my point is and I'm I'm really looking for the truth. I'm trying to reconcile what Mr. Twigg Smith is saying, both in his article and on your radio show, with respect to uh one thing. For example, he stated in his article that US troops stood by to protect American lives and property but did not take sides. Mr. Twigg met further stated that their arms were stacked. But the pictures that I'm looking at show armed, uh, these armed individuals.
[00:45:21] Randall Roth: Okay, let let me give him an opportunity to to respond to that particular one.
[00:45:24] Thurston Twigg-Smith: I think it's it's a it's an interesting point. The the picture you're looking at, and I'm not directly familiar with it because I haven't read that particular book, but it's probably of the volunteer army. And those people were armed and they were ready for any kind of action that the Queen's troops might bring out. The argument that comes out.
[00:45:43] Caller: I want to put into the statement that, you know, on page 84 as well as page 60, um, Gatling guns and um, the USS Boston with its troops were all armed and facing the Palace and not really in Nuana or other areas where Americans were residing. In effect, if what you're saying they were there to protect American lives and property, why weren't they dispersed throughout the community where Americans live as opposed to
[00:46:13] Randall Roth: Mary, let's let's we're running low on time and I want to respond to to your comment.
[00:46:17] Thurston Twigg-Smith: They were located in three places. I'll go through this quickly. Half the Marines were put at the consulate, which I think was at school in Newano, and the other half of the Marines 16 were put at at the legation down on the Merchant street. And then the remaining 130 Blue Jackets were centralized, not facing the Palaces, but behind Aryan Hall, out of sight of the palace, and that's where they stacked their arms so they couldn't be accused of pointing them at the Queen or anybody else. They were ready.
[00:46:46] Caller: What picture on page 84 shows them with arms in their hands if they were stacked?
[00:46:50] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Well, I don't know the I don't know who's in the picture, sorry to say.
[00:46:53] Caller: Well, it says here US military troops.
[00:46:56] Randall Roth: Okay, Mary, let me just make sure the Twiggs had a chance to respond to to your comment and then we can.
[00:47:00] Caller: My point is, you know, who is being revisionist here? I'm looking at pictures that are.
[00:47:06] Randall Roth: Mary, you're making you're making your point real well. I want Twigg to finish responding, and then we're going to hear from Davey and then I have to move on.
[00:47:12] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Well, obviously as they came from the Boston to the Aryan Hall, they went up to Abern's house on the way there, they were carrying their arms at that point and probably pulling along the Gatling gun. But they when they set themselves up there to wait out the developments, at that time nothing was going on. And when and they even dipped their colors to the Queen as they went by the palace, but when they took up position at Aryan Hall, that's when they went uh at rest.
[00:47:37] Caller: Okay. The other point Twigg, I want to mention was that Castle was part of your grandfather's or great grandfather's group, and isn't Castle also involved in the growing of sugar and pineapple in the islands?
[00:47:52] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Well, at that particular time, he was a shareholder in some uh sugar plantations. He was not a plantation owner or operator.
[00:47:59] Caller: But he did own quite a bit of lands, in fact, my grandfather my great grandfather had lands that had to be given to him.
[00:48:05] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Well, he was one of the wealthier members of the group and he was one of the missionary descendants. Out of that committee of 13, there were three missionary descendants, Castle and Thurston and W O Smith.
[00:48:16] Randall Roth: I've got to jump in. I want Daviana to have an opportunity to comment on this, and we're running low of time, I've got a bunch of people on the line. Daviana, any thoughts?
[00:48:25] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Well, I think the main point is that the Queen uh knew that the US troops had invaded and that when she surrendered, she surrendered to the United States government, not to the local uh group of um Holly, uh missionaries and planters and and um, and Big Five planters uh factor. So, the main point is that the Queen knew who she was up against and that's who she surrendered to and and in her writings, she uh clearly felt that the main threat came from the United States government.
[00:48:54] Thurston Twigg-Smith: I would like to only comment, I I I really don't like the use of the word invade and I know I notice that it's used quite often because it has a pejorative nature to it, but I looked it up in the dictionary last night and it means to enter for conquest or plunder as in raid or assault. And surely you don't think that the orders to these troops told them that that's what they were there to do. The orders said very clearly to go in to protect American lives and property and not there to raid and plunder.
[00:49:22] Randall Roth: We have to move on. I've got a number of people who have been waiting very patiently and and we're running low of time, and so each of the callers, I'm going to try to get to all of you, but but do your very very best to keep your comment as tight as possible. We go to Sean from Waikiki. Good morning.
[00:49:36] Caller: Um, thank you all very much for having me on your show and it's an honor to talk to your distinguished panel. I'll make this real quick, and I'll get off the line. Um, this is more for Mr. Smith. I don't see any difference between the annexation of Hawaii and what Hitler did in Austria or what Saddam Hussein did in Kuwait. I don't know why America keeps trying to justify this thing. Um, I mean, annexation is annexation. I mean, we took over a sovereign land. I mean, what right is that? Um, thank you very much, I'll I'll go now.
[00:50:01] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Okay. Well, we didn't take over sovereign land. The the Republic had taken over the Hawaiian Kingdom when annexation called, uh, came about. There was an existing nation, the Hawaiian Republic that had been an independent nation for nearly five years, was recognized by every country in the world. Revolution is not the same as what Hitler and those people did. Revolution is what we did in Boston, the Tea Party, and subsequently, and it's what the French did. It's a it's a situation when a group on a citizenry desires to overthrow a government that they feel is not in anyone's best interest, except the people that are running it.
[00:50:38] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Oh, well, what happened in in Hawaii by the United States cannot be compared to the revolution in Boston. I think what happened was could be compared more to what the US did to the Native American Indians as it devastated the the lives of the people and took over their lands as they spread up spread West or what happened in the Spanish-American war and when they took over the Philippines in the two-year genocide against Filipinos in the Philippines from 1900 to 1902.
[00:51:07] Randall Roth: Okay, let's go to Bill from Manoa. Good morning, Bill.
[00:51:10] Caller: Morning. I'll be uh very brief. Uh as a just as a point of uh historical uh argument, the sugar planters were not opposed to annexation. The only thing they were opposed to was the whole thing of, um, immigration labor, and they knew that by annexation, that would become a federal prerogative and not a local one. Exactly. If their if their labor dries up, then they've got no one to work the fields.
[00:51:35] Randall Roth: You know, Bill, let me let me just tell listeners that for the first time in this hour, I'm seeing both of my guests nodding the same direction. They're both in total agreement with what you just said. I'm not sure what the implication is, but it's interesting to me that they both agree with that.
[00:51:49] Caller: Uh second point is um the uh the purpose of of annexation and and the purpose of the Republic of Hawaii was to uh to eliminate any tariff barriers to um the import of Hawaiian sugar to the continent. It was based on the assumption and the erroneous assumption at that that the United States could not invoke legal barriers from the movement of commerce from one point of the United States to another point in the United States. The fact of the matter is the Supreme Court resolved that in the insular cases saying that uh the federal government could discriminate against the import of commerce from the territories to the states.
[00:52:32] Caller: And that suddenly changed the attitude quite dramatically, which in in essence informed one of the bases for statehood, because once a territory becomes a state, then all states are admitted on an equal footing. So, in essence, the the annexation was based on a very faulty premise. Uh, and I think that should be re-examined. Just one last a quick comment. Uh, one of the traits of an amateur historian, that an am historian tends to put moral constructions on situations and people which they have absolutely no knowledge of.
[00:53:07] Caller: And a good example of that and I mean this is a sincere uh constructive criticism to Mr. Twick Smith, and that is we cannot we cannot judge the morality of working of the common work for the Konoheki or for the chiefs based on what we feel uh appropriate moral standards. The only way that can be resolved and the professional historian or anthropologist does this, is simply to examine the record.
[00:53:28] Randall Roth: Okay, Bill, appreciate your call. No objections. Okay. Uh, we go to George from Kapahulu. Good morning, George.
[00:53:34] Caller: Yeah, Aloha.
[00:53:35] Randall Roth: Aloha.
[00:53:36] Caller: Uh, would really quick, would you both touch on another overthrow that happened some 50 years earlier and tying it in with 1893, but also would you address the issue of honor as opposed to or the lack thereof? Mahalo.
[00:53:58] Randall Roth: Who wants to start?
[00:54:00] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: I'm not sure what he's referring to.
[00:54:02] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Um, neither am I.
[00:54:03] Caller: Well, when the British came came and uh
[00:54:07] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Oh, well, when the British grabbed the place and then gave it back, you mean.
[00:54:10] Caller: Yeah, because uh, they saw that they had done wrong and they left.
[00:54:17] Thurston Twigg-Smith: I think the difference is it's not the United I my argument is it was not the United States that came in, it was a group of local residents, a volunteer army that conducted the revolution, not the United States. The United States came ashore as it had on three previous occasions to maintain protection over American lives and property. The revolutionists were not just Americans, they were a mixed body of people. On the committee of of safety, there were only something like four Americans, there were five members who had been Americans but were now subjects of the kingdom. And US government, as Blant pointed out, did not consider them Americans any further.
[00:54:55] Thurston Twigg-Smith: And then there were uh the balance of the 13 were four of them were from Europe.
[00:55:01] Randall Roth: Um, let's move on and and George, I appreciate your call. I'm sorry to rush, but we're going to try and hear a couple more people in just the few minutes we have left. Lono from Manoa, good morning Lono.
[00:55:09] Caller: Aloha.
[00:55:10] Randall Roth: Aloha.
[00:55:10] Caller: I just wanted to say, I'm um both uh part Hawaiian and and a missionary descent, which puts me in a both a confusing situation of agreeing with both sides and wondering why we're continuing to beat history to death rather than look at uh areas of uh common agreement and where we can go from now.
[00:55:30] Randall Roth: Can I That's my question.
[00:55:32] Thurston Twigg-Smith: I agree with that as long as we're beating history to death on evenly on an even basis, there's no problem there. But we should look ahead. There's no doubt about that, and there are lots of things we can do in the sovereignty area other than argue about returning lands and that kind of thing. I think there's well deserved avenues that need to be pursued.
[00:55:52] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Yeah, I'm that was my point at the beginning that we look we should look at the areas for reconciliation and repatriation for uh redress to the native Hawaiian people, especially, uh, and um and kind of look at more broadly what has been the impact of these historical changes upon the native Hawaiian people. Even in the apology bill points out that the impact has been devastating to the native Hawaiian population today.
[00:56:16] Randall Roth: Okay. Um, I apologize to the many callers who who got through and we didn't get to, and I'm sure there were some others who tried to get through and and didn't make it. Um, if you'd like to join in an internet uh version of this conversation, please go to popweb.org uh on your computer and do that. We've got about 40 seconds each um for the two of you to sum up your thoughts. Twig?
[00:56:41] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Well, I'd would only say that I think that we got to get away from looking upon Hawaiians as victims. I think there's a tendency on the part of many sovereignty people to try to paint that side of the picture and I don't think it's very productive and it doesn't help build self-esteem which is one of the problems we all should be working on. I think
[00:57:34] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: ability of the Hawaiian people to remain a distinct unique people able to pass on our language and our culture to future generations. And what is at the heart of that is our relationship to the land and to the natural resources, and what we seek is is the is the return of what rightfully belongs to the native Hawaiian people so that we can continue to be a people in Hawaii.
[00:57:54] Randall Roth: Okay. Well, I think Thurston Twig Smith, Davion and McGregor, you've been listening to the Price of Paradise radio show. Our producer is Susie Roth, the director of operations is Jeff Ilarity, our helper this morning was Palm Roth, aloha.