Dueling Historians: Debating the Overthrow II
Price of Paradise · Hawaii Public Radio · aired 1997-09-14
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: 1:09:22

[00:00:07] Randall Roth: Good morning, Aloha. This is Randy Roth, host of The Price of Paradise show. We weren't quite ready, we're still putting on our headsets, but we are here. The Price of Paradise is broadcast live, Sunday mornings on KHPR and KKUA, then rebroadcast Sunday evenings beginning at 8 o'clock 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 that brightness of any community's future is directly related to the level of activity in its marketplace of ideas.
[00:00:40] Randall Roth: Our show this morning is the continuation of last week's conversation having to do with history, specifically the events surrounding the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. Joining me again in the studio are Thurston Twigg-Smith and Davianna McGregor. Daviana is an associate professor in the University of Hawaii ethnic Studies department, and a historian of the of Hawaii and the Pacific. Thurston Twigg-Smith is a fifth generation local boy, who got his early education in Honolulu's public schools. He's a graduate of Punahou and Yale, and a former newspaper man. In fact, he owned the Honolulu Advertiser. Currently, he's a part-time philanthropist and amateur historian who's writing a book about sovereignty. Well, good morning, Twigg and Davianna.
[00:01:28] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Good morning.
[00:01:28] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Good morning.
[00:01:30] Randall Roth: Um, first question I have, um, and this is the big question that was, uh, in the headlines of the paper this morning. Was the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy a revolution, and that's a word, Twig that you used last week in describing it, or an invasion? And that's a word that Daviana chose last week. And to start this conversation, I thought we would do something a little bit different. I would like each of you to do your very best to to clearly and fairly describe the position of the other.
[00:02:03] Randall Roth: Twig, uh, if if you were Davianna making the best case you possibly could make, that it was an invasion, how would you go about doing it?
[00:02:11] Thurston Twigg-Smith: I think Daviana believes that it really was an invasion, in other words, a conquest, an effort at conquest by the United States. That it was therefore part of a conspiracy, put together, uh, with the people on the on the shore in order to come in and and con and make a conquest, take over the area. And I think she really feels that the, and I think this is probably correct, that the majority of Hawaiian people at that time, given their druthers, if it was just a simple matter of taking a vote, would have been opposed to, uh, the overthrow.
[00:02:46] Thurston Twigg-Smith: And I also think, because I think she wrote it, that she believes the congressional resolution of apology and hence feels that, uh, the president's action and the congressional action, uh, sanctify and prove her viewpoint of the whole thing, namely that it was something that was wrested from the Hawaiians without their approval.
[00:03:07] Randall Roth: Okay. Um, somebody coming in from the outside, listening to what you just said, or reading Daviana's piece in the paper this morning, do you think it's it's a pretty good case? In other words, would you expect somebody to be leaning in that direction after listening to you just now, or reading that in the newspaper?
[00:03:25] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Well, uh, with all due respect to my persuasive qualities, I I do think that people who stopped and looked at it a second time might question, it might wonder why if there were a majority of Hawaiians at that time opposed to the revolution, why didn't they, uh, resist it? They could have been very simply done.
[00:03:44] Randall Roth: Okay, and I don't want to get into, you know, your argument just yet because Davianna is going to make that first. Uh, Davianna, if you were trying to make, and then I'm asking you to try to make the, the best argument possible for what Twig's position is, that it was a revolution as opposed to an invasion. Um, how would you go about describing that and, and making that case?
[00:04:05] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: I think it rests on, um, the characterization of the monarchy and the Queen, and uh, Twig Smith, uh, position is that the Queen was an arbitrary ruler and ineffective, and that the monarchy by that time had become an archaic and ineffective means of government. And that the, uh, foreigners who had come to Hawaii and settled, who were, uh, living here, um, felt the monarchy should be replaced so that there could be a more democratic form of government. And, um, therefore they, uh, worked together to bring about these democratic reforms and they sought the, um, assistance of the, um, US government primarily to protect their lives and property.
[00:04:52] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: And that there was no resistance from the broader, um, people of Hawaii to the troops when they landed and so that is evidence that he makes for the fact that it was more of a revolution, uh, than an invasion since it was not, there was not this widespread resistance at the time in January of 1893.
[00:05:13] Randall Roth: Um, I've got to tell you. She's convinced me. As, as I listen to each of you, whether you're, uh, stating your own position or that of the other, uh, it sounds to me like there's some pretty good arguments on each side. Why don't I get out of the way of this conversation for a minute and let the two of you take your natural positions, and, um, and see if you can talk the other into a little bit of movement. Uh, Davianna, why don't you start working on Twigg first?
[00:05:42] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Well, I think the Queen was a very effective leader and and a beloved leader, um, and she's remembered today for her, uh, forbearance and her wisdom in not, uh, seeking to resist the invading forces of the of Hawaii, uh, of the United States to Hawaii because, uh, she knew it would lead to the loss of, um, Hawaiian lives.
[00:06:07] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Uh, she had when she was five years old, uh, was very much impressed with the fact that when Britain had taken over Hawaii from February to, uh, July of 1843, that the military had invaded Hawaii, taken over the government, but when the government in, in Britain found out about this action, it undid it, it sent Admiral Thomas to restore the sovereignty of the Hawaiian monarchy. And the Queen felt that in 1893, if she appealed to the, um, US government in Washington DC, that the same, uh, thing would occur, that that her she would be restored to to the monarchy.
[00:06:45] Randall Roth: And that's the reason why she didn't resist.
[00:06:48] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Well, she didn't call upon the people to resist. The other thing is that she really didn't have a military to speak of. In 1887, when the military was stronger, there was even at that time, only 62 full-time military, um, personnel in the, in the, um, Hawaiian army, and after 1887 with the Bayonet Constitution, uh, that even that was reduced in numbers. So, there was largely just, uh, volunteer forces, uh, the, the foreign volunteer forces were heavily armed and well trained, and the Hawaiian forces were not well armed.
[00:07:25] Randall Roth: So the Queen probably thought that it was it was pointless, uh, because she couldn't really put up an effective resistance and it was unnecessary because it was a matter of time before it would undo itself the way it did earlier with the British.
[00:07:39] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: And in fact, um, when it appeared the United States wasn't going to act, because even after Grover Cleveland reported to Congress that the monarchy should be restored, then by January of 1895, the Hawaiians had amassed arms. They realized they didn't have enough arms to resist at that point in time, but then, from January, uh, of 1894 through '95, they spent that whole year and they, they were importing weapons and they were ready to, um, restore the the the monarchy by January of 1895.
[00:08:12] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: So, in fact, it's not true they didn't resist, but they didn't have when they had the opportunity and the arms amassed and the ability to even to make such a challenge, they did, which it was in January of 1895.
[00:08:24] Randall Roth: Twig, it sounds pretty convincing to me. What do you say?
[00:08:27] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Well, I think one of the, uh, so many points that came up in my mind as she was talking there, but that last point about amassing the arms for the counter revolution, I think goes toward proving the point that the United States really was on Liliuokalani's side and not the side of the provisional government, because the provisional government called attention to the massing of these arms in San Francisco and told the US secretary of state Gresham, that these arms were going to be smuggled into Hawaii.
[00:08:57] Thurston Twigg-Smith: They had learned that through undercover agents, and the United States did nothing about it, which of course would be, is, is in itself a big violation of international law. But bearing in mind that Gresham favored the Queen's reinstatement, it's understandable.
[00:09:13] Thurston Twigg-Smith: So that I think that the, uh, idea that the United States was on the side of the revolutionists is pretty well disproven by that fact alone. But even more than that, way early in the game when the when the, uh, promulgation had just been made of the provisional government, the Queen and her cabinet appealed to Stevens an hour or two after that announcement and they were well aware of the announcement because it was right across the street from them. I think that business of conspiracy is critical to their whole idea of sovereignty movement and then and it just doesn't hold up. There are no facts to support that there was any kind of a conspiracy.
[00:10:15] Randall Roth: And so if if there wasn't a conspiracy, then it it wasn't an invasion. Uh, your terminology is if it was a revolution, and I guess the implication is that if it was a revolution, then it was a legitimate change in the form of government.
[00:10:31] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Right, and I think international, that one of the points that the that's made in the congressional apology resolution is that there were international treaties against, uh, revolution. And there really aren't. I mean, that's it. If you recognize that this was between the Queen and her party and the local residents, and not between the Queen and her party and the United States, there's no question of treaties interfering because the local residents had no treaty with the Queen to do whatever she wanted all the time.
[00:11:17] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Let me make one point about the conspiracy thing because I think that's critical to it. Uh, if you think back over the whole deal, the Committee of 13 was open from the very beginning. On Saturday, they met with the Queen's cabinet who had come down to ask them to help them overthrow the Queen themselves. They told them they would, on Sunday they told them they would go along with it without them. On Monday, they were meeting in Thurston's office when Marshal Wilson came in and told them to stop this business and go home. And they told them, 'No, it's too late, we're going right ahead'.
[00:12:01] Thurston Twigg-Smith: And there were no US troops around to cloud her mind at that point, she could have moved in with her even though it seems to be a little less inadequate force. In Davey's mind it it was certainly a force of people she had there, they could have arrested those 13 people.
[00:12:24] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Well, I think you also have to look at what was, what is the pattern of American um expansion and colonization uh beyond North America and you had a history of the US expanding into an area, sending settlers, uh reorganizing the the the uh indigenous economy and and social system, and then seeking to annex it. Uh, claiming that they need to uh protect American lives and property and interests and that the people who are now living there in these new territories seek to become a part of the United States. And this is what happened in Texas, this is what happened in California, and this is what happened in Hawaii.
[00:13:03] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: But at the time that the US, in 1893, what was happening also is that the US was going through a process of trying to figure out how they were going to expand and compete with Britain and France and Russia in, you know, the China trade that it was seeking to expand to. And yet, be true to the founding fathers um opposing um the uh expansion and acquisition of colonies because the US was a was founded by 13 colonies who were opposing uh imperialism and now the United States was seeking to be imperialist itself.
[00:13:46] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: By the time the overthrow had occurred, you had a Democratic President Grover Cleveland who was anti-expansionist and and then by the time of the Spanish-American war, at the time of annexation, Cleveland was not no longer President and McKinley who was a rabbit expansionist was now President and also had a Secretary of Navy, um, Theodore Roosevelt, who was also pro-expansionist. And because they had to justify what they were doing, they they didn't come out with a policy of full colonization, but what they call insular expansion, that is just get little islands that could support a navy, making stop overs to China in this case or to protect the US interests in Latin America.
[00:14:45] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: And so they they they they tried to minimize the amount of colonization that that would occur and and maximize the trade that they could open up with these different arteries. Well, later happened in the in the same thing happened in Puerto Rico and the Philippines.
[00:15:09] Randall Roth: So it was a conspiracy in the sense that leaders of the United States government pretty much knew what they wanted, and the instrument through which they got it was this committee of safety, these 13 people who overthrew the government and you would say through invasion and Twig would say by revolution.
[00:15:26] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Well, there was a coincidence of interest that I'm not saying so so much that the Committee of 13 was total was totally in in a conspiracy with the United States, but there was certainly a coincidence of interest and they co-operated at that point in time in in history that their their interests converged and and they collaborated in the in the invasion and the overthrow of the the Hawaiian monarchy.
[00:15:36] Thurston Twigg-Smith: I think uh Davi's hit on probably the key point of this whole thing, but of course she's coming at it a slightly different angle than I would, and I I'd like to look at it from another angle, and that is the whole question of colonization. Included in the Morgan committee's report was a map of a naval map of the Pacific and it showed at that time that every single group of islands in the Pacific, with the possible exception, I think, of the maybe the Marianas or the Carolines, right? Carolines, it was already in the hands of some foreign power. The only thing left was Hawaii.
[00:16:27] Thurston Twigg-Smith: So, it was very clear that somebody was going to grab Hawaii. And we had Japanese government, German government, French government, British government, already controlling other groups of islands. The United States had made lots of of uh statements that nobody was going to acquire Hawaii because they were going to defend it, but they had not made any moves to acquire it. Going clear back into the 1850s, there had been efforts on the part of Hawaii to become acquired by the United States, but the United States wasn't having any part of it.
[00:17:08] Thurston Twigg-Smith: And, uh, Davi, LA Thurston didn't go back to Washington in 1892 to invite the government to come aboard, he went back on behalf of the annexation Club to find out what it would take to get the United States interested in annexation and came back with the message, and he was told this, that there will be no annexation unless requested by the government of Hawaii. In other words, the United States was following its policy in Hawaii's state there. They were not, as she says, out to expand. They were it was a different mood in the United States, regardless of which government was in power.
[00:18:02] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Well, when they said that, you know, they would come if the government was asked, it was also said that if you if your uh if the conditions change and you have to act in such a way that you've indicated, which was that they would have to to take over the government directly, that then the United States would come in.
[00:18:18] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: So it was clear that they the United States anticipated that there would be a change in government that then would request this annexation. And it was made clear, um, as far as I can read in the record, that um the annexationist sought to overthrow the monarchy directly and seek direct annexation, and it was would be they, not the Queen, seeking to be a part of the United States.
[00:18:40] Randall Roth: Okay, for those who tuned in late, you'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. With me in the studio is Davianna McGregor and Thurston Twigg-Smith. Want to tell you a little bit more about each of them. Uh, Thurston, whom we refer to here as as Twigg, comes from a family with extensive roots in these islands, ranging back to his great-great-grandfather, Asa Thurston, a Yale graduate who arrived here as a pioneer missionary in 1820 and stayed in the ministry the rest of his life, dying here in 1868.
[00:19:16] Randall Roth: He was given land on the Big Island by the king but left it to his church in Kailua. Twig's great-grandfather, Asa Goddell Thurston, was the founding president of the Hawaiian Mission Children's Society, formed to help finance missions to South Sea Islands. He died at the age of 32, leaving an inscribed Bible or only an inscribed Bible to Twig's grandfather, Lauren A. Thurston, sometimes referred to as LA Thurston, who was then two years old. LA Thurston, raised with his brother and sister by a single mom in today's parlance, was expelled from Punahou in his junior year for various pranks, but ironically was invited back as a trustee after the revolution and served from 1896 until 1930.
[00:20:02] Randall Roth: LA's grandfather, the missionary, had been a trustee from 1851 to 1862. Twig, who went to Punahou for only three years on a scholarship, continued the tradition by serving as a trustee from 1955 until this year. Daviana McGregor is a graduate and, and as you know when you ask people in Hawaii, where'd you graduate from, they always give the high school. So Twig is Punahou and Daviana is Sacred Hearts Academy. Daviana also has bachelor's, master's and PhD degrees from the University of Hawaii. Her master's thesis was on Hawaiian resistance movements in the 19th century, focusing on the Wilcox rebellion.
[00:20:41] Randall Roth: Her dissertation was on the first 32 years of direct US rule over Hawaii, the Hawaiian community from 1898 through 1930. Her grandmother, Louise Aoie McGregor, was in the first class to graduate from the Kamehameha School for Girls in 1894. The Hanai daughter of Queen Liliuokalani was a classmate. On holidays and weekends, her grandmother and some of the other girls from the schools stayed at the home of the queen, both at Washington Place and at Waikiki. Davie's father's parents were active in Hawaiian politics as members of the Republican Party. The family had homes in Haula and in Honolulu. In Honolulu, the family, including her dad, lived above the offices of Prince Kuhio's Honomua Press.
[00:21:28] Randall Roth: Her grandmother, being of half Chinese ancestry, was a personal friend of Sun Yat-sen when he was in Hawaii. If you'd like to ask a question or make a comment, give us a call at 955-8821. If you're on a neighbor island, the number is 1-800-955-8821. Again, we're talking about the historical events surrounding the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. Well, before we start taking calls, um, something that I want to ask the two of you and it was raised in one of the articles in today's newspaper, is the degree to which you think your own backgrounds influence your position on the issues that we're we're discussing right now.
[00:22:12] Randall Roth: Um, one of the articles in the paper said that, uh, perhaps each of you has a historic axe to grind and maybe lacks credibility for that reason. Uh, Daviana, you first. To what extent do you think your, your family background and your upbringing and all of those things that make you who you are, somehow, uh, distort your ability to to see things and describe things the way somebody without your background might.
[00:22:39] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Well, I think growing up as Hawaiian, we always um, feel that we've been dispossessed and our when we get together in family gatherings and people talk, um, we're always looking at what happened and feeling that that whatever what happened with the queen and the overthrow was unjust. And the queen was a wonderful leader and that the those who came to do good had done very well for themselves at the expense and the burden upon the native Hawaiian people.
[00:23:09] Thurston Twigg-Smith: And yet, when we tried in my generation to, um, correct those injustices, uh, we, our, our, our our grandparents started to say, well that's not the Hawaiian way. Don't, don't cause trouble. Don't speak out. Don't be, um, rebellious. And and it wasn't in the Hawaiian tradition and so myself, as a historian and and studying the history of the Hawaiian people, felt compelled to to look into that. Were we really, um, did we really just welcome with open arms these changes?
[00:23:42] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Was there no resistance to the, um, overthrow, uh, by the US government and it and it's simply not true and in my master's thesis, that's what I documented was the degree to which at every point in in history where there were major changes that led to devastating impacts upon the native Hawaiian people, there was resistance in one form or another and, um, uh, you know, two points in time after the wars of Kamehameha ended, there was there was, you know, armed resistance and rebellion against the changes that were that were now burdening the native Hawaiian people.
[00:24:19] Randall Roth: Okay. Twig, to what extent is is your family history and and upbringing reflected? Let me just make one comment first on what uh Davey says, I don't think we're making as much progress whether as we might have thought we were. She keeps talking about overthrow by the US government and I think we've we're a long ways from any indication that that was what happened in Hawaii. It was obviously not the US government that conducted the overthrow, you need only look at the orders given to the people who were landing, nothing in them about overthrowing.
[00:24:51] Randall Roth: However, going back to what my background might do for me, I think one thing it's done is caused me to perhaps do a lot more reading about Hawaiian history than I might otherwise have. I I'm always confused or not or puzzled, I guess, is the better word for it, by the lack of of recognition I would call it, uh for the fact that my family really loves Hawaii and loves Hawaiians. My, all my, I don't speak Hawaiian, but my grandfather, great-grandfather, great-great-grandfather, all spoke Hawaiian fluently.
[00:25:23] Randall Roth: They were all part of the scene here, they were all with the monarchy right up to the point of the reform constitution when they recognized that with the Kamehameha dynasty gone and Kalakaua in and Liliuokalani in the wings, that monarchy was going in a direction that was not beneficial to the people. So they were looking at what benefits Hawaiian people, rather than what benefits Hawaiian monarchy. And I suppose to some degree a a happy monarchy scene does is beneficial to the Hawaiian people, but that was not the way they saw it.
[00:25:57] Randall Roth: They they thought that the best thing for the Hawaiian people was to own their own land, to be free, to have the election the right to vote and all that kind of thing, which uh, in the very end, Queen Liliuokalani was taking away for them. So I think my background of long association here, maybe maybe Thurston was even here before McGregor, who knows? I think both of us go back far enough to have a love for the land and the people. And the puzzling thing to me is that we need to to question that uh that love and that feeling in one another's uh backgrounds.
[00:26:32] Randall Roth: You know, and and I agree with you, and and normally we work very, very hard to focus on issues as opposed to personalities, um, but, but I think this is a little bit different and, and there's a specific question that I I I want to ask you and, and I apologize ahead of time. Uh, but as I talk to people about what we're doing with this show and what we did last week, uh a theme that I hear is a belief out there that somehow the committee of of safety, the the 13 people at the heart of the overthrow, um, that they must have benefited personally.
[00:27:07] Randall Roth: And I think a lot of people realize that currently you're you're a wealthy man and there's some people out there who feel that that your wealth is is perhaps derived from wealth that your your grandfather got as a result of the overthrow. And I want to give you an opportunity to to address that because it is something that that I hear being said. Yeah, I I hear that kind of thing too. I've I've heard it every time I get involved in any discussions with the Hawaiian activist uh people. And it's simply not true. I mean my grandfather particularly got nothing out of the revolution in in terms of uh wealthy material goods.
[00:27:47] Randall Roth: Uh, none of the people involved in the committee of 13 took permanent jobs in the government, they were not after that kind of thing. Dole was not a party to the not a part of the committee of 13, they asked him to take over the position after LA Thurston said, I'm not the kind of guy you want in there, I'm too contentious. You want somebody in there who's respected by everybody and as a justice of the Supreme Court appointed by the queen, Dole was that kind of a person.
[00:28:14] Randall Roth: But the rest of the committee with the possible exception of WO Smith, who was uh Dole's attorney general throughout the period uh of the Republic and and the provisional government, the rest of the committee played no active role in the government, they were members of the advisory council. And WO Smith himself was asked by the queen long after the revolution to become a trustee of her estate, so there was a a respect for him that existed even in her mind. So it's just a canard that the people did anything. It's just as much a canard about the revolution as as it is about the missionaries.
[00:28:51] Randall Roth: I mean that business about coming to do good and doing well is a long standing canard, it's just not it's simply not true. Uh, let me give each of you a a a moment to to comment on what you've heard each other say about this, whether your backgrounds are somehow influencing your approach to the issue today, and then I want to start taking some calls, Daviana.
[00:29:13] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Um, well, I mean I I'm clear that it's it is because of, um, the conditions of native Hawaiians today when I look at the the the socioeconomic conditions of Hawaiians and the statistics that we are reflected that Hawaiians didn't, uh, did not, have not fared well under the US government. And in the research that I did in the early, uh, from 1898 to 1930, you can see the beginnings of those changes, um, and the the problems which Hawaiians suffer with regard to health health and, um, and well-being, uh, is directly related to the changes that were brought about by the the foreigners.
[00:29:55] Thurston Twigg-Smith: So, yeah, my my interest in in Hawaiian history and my concern to have the voices of the Hawaiian people from that time be heard and recognized is directly related to how I feel as a as a native Hawaiian.
[00:30:11] Randall Roth: Um, Twig, do you have anything to add? Yeah, two uh two quick points. One is that, uh, I you asked about about wealth, I personally add came in with none. I was a scholarship student at Punaho and at Yale and when I came back here after the war, I went to work at the advertiser for $180 a month, you can't live too well on that these days.
[00:30:33] Randall Roth: And it was 15 years before I even got to $1800, and then after that the company did well and I shared in it, but from the very beginning that I took over, we've been giving 10% of our income net in taxable income to various charities, so we believe in giving back to the community. That's one point. But the other thing, I think uh, going one of the clauses in the apology resolution says that annexation was devastating to the population and the health and wellbeing of the Hawaiian people. And that's got to be total baloney.
[00:31:04] Randall Roth: I mean the Hawaiian people, let's look at it, they got became citizens, they got the right to vote, they became heir to all of the welfare benefits the United States had to offer. And immediately after the annexation, they control the Hawaiian legislature, they elected the delegate to Congress for the next 20 years, they controlled all the elected offices, all the point of offices, right up to World War II. The Hawaiians had voting power, which they relished and Wilcox himself said, we have the right to vote, let's get out and do it.
[00:31:33] Randall Roth: So it's not it wasn't a result of annexation that the Hawaiian suffered the uh and loss of power here, it was because the other minorities began getting more cohesive themselves and began to take over after World War II. Andrew from Ikiki. Good morning, Andrew. Good morning. Um, I was going to call last week, but I was running out the door to go down to the Iolani Palace, which they had the uh open house for uh people that live here. And when I got down there, there was hardly anybody there, just mostly tourists, and I'm kind of surprised that Hawaiians and people here don't take advantage of that.
[00:35:10] Randall Roth: And what I was going to comment on is that when you go into the Iolani Palace, they talk about how you know, they slant the um the uh tour towards this overthrow and how the queen was forced to sign this constitution, but there's nary a mention of King Kalakaua. And where do you think the revo- you know, where do you think Hawaii'd be if if King Kalakaua was still, you know, the king at the time? I don't believe that it would have actually there would have been an overthrow, but I think people focus too much on the queen.
[00:35:46] Randall Roth: She didn't speak English, and I think it'd be more or less like having the Queen of England trying to take, you know, London or England into the 21st century. It just the things at the time I guess weren't uh, you know, going in that direction. Andrew, let me get uh reactions from both of our guests to what you've just said. Twig, you had a quick reaction. Yeah, quick reaction. The queen was well-educated, spoke excellent English, so no problem. Oh yeah, she was very, very charming, very erudite. So I don't know where the policy that she didn't speak English. Okay, what did you just say Twig? I didn't hear.
[00:36:24] Randall Roth: No, I just I just said there's no question about uh her educational background and her ability to cope with the rest of the world. She was on even terms with any monarch anywhere in terms of her personal bearing and her personal talents. Okay, you just felt she wasn't a good leader. Well, she was ineffective, because she didn't follow what Kalakaua was at least willing to abide by the reform constitution. Had she been willing to abide by that and not try to promulgate a new one which gave her back a whole lot of powers that he didn't have, there wouldn't have been any overthrow.
[00:36:59] Randall Roth: People were upset by her pushing through the opium bill and the lottery bill, but those two things in themselves uh wouldn't have been enough to tip the tide. It's only when she started doing like remember, go back a minute in English history, King James the Second. Uh he just even thought of, I hear, now see he was thinking about putting out a new constitution and they didn't even have a written constitution. They threw him out, a whole new dynasty came in just for even thinking about it. And here she had one all written up and ready to promulgate and everybody knew what bad things it was going to do. So naturally they threw her out.
[00:37:38] Randall Roth: Daviana. And and let me just ask a question. What Twig called the reform constitution, is that what you referred to earlier in the hour as the bayonet constitution? Yes, exactly. Can you give us a real quick history lesson as to what that constitution was, when it came into existence and how it relates to the events of the overthrow?
[00:38:00] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: When King Kalakaua got elected in 1874, he was pro-American and he managed to One of his He got elected because he said he would he would negotiate a reciprocity treaty that would promote the sugar interests in Hawaii. And in fact, he did. And as the after the reciprocity treaty, the plantations expanded and American interests in Hawaii expanded and and the people began to suffer quite greatly, as as they were displaced from the land as the sugar plantations expanded to such a great extent.
[00:38:34] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: And then you have a whole new Asian population being imported to work on the plantations so that by 1890, Hawaiians were for the first time a minority within our own homeland. Well, King Kalakaua began to change his alliances no longer pro-American because he saw the burden upon the Hawaiian people, became a very avid nationalist. And when the treaty expired in 1886, he opposed its renewal because the US Congress was demanding that Pearl Harbor be seeded to the United States in order for the treaty to be renewed. And the King absolutely refused to do that.
[00:39:15] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: And so, Lauren Thurston back then organized the I can't remember the name, the Hawaiian League to draft a new constitution which would limit the powers of of the King. And King Kalakaua because he only had 62 full-time military personnel was ineffective in knew he couldn't resist and and put up a struggle against this. So he did sign what was called the Bayonet Constitution. It took away most of his powers. It gave more powers to the foreign elements in in Hawaii and the people were opposed to it and they they rallied, they petitioned the King to to make a new constitution. In 1889, Wilcox organized a rebellion to have the King change the constitution and nothing worked. And when the King died and Queen Liliuokalani assumed the throne, she promised that she would change that constitution.
[00:40:13] Thurston Twigg-Smith: And it's when she tried to change it that the events started to accelerate so far as the overthrow is concerned.
[00:40:19] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: And there were two-thirds of the voters who had petitioned the Queen by the time that she had announced that she would change it, two-thirds of the voting population had petitioned her to do that.
[00:40:28] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Twig, I'd just say one thing and there that the part of the constitution she was attempting to promulgate included the power to appoint the House of Nobles, so she wasn't really giving the Hawaiians themselves much in the way of further democracy. She was taking away their right to elect one whole half of the house of the legislature. And of course, there were a number of other things that were equally confining in that constitution.
[00:40:55] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Well, the election of nobles was only a feature that was introduced with the Bayonet Constitution up through 1887. The King and the had appointed the House of Nobles. And when they say oh, it was democratic that the people could elect the House of Nobles, you had to have $3,000 worth of property or $600 annual income in order to qualify to vote for the House of Nobles. And at that time, the average income for the common person was $248. And when we look at the statistics in 1890, 11,600 people voted for the House of Representatives and only 3,000 voted for the House of Nobles, which means that there were about 8,000 people who didn't meet the property qualifications in order to vote. So when he's defending this election of the House of Nobles, it's the election of the House of Nobles by the property interest, mostly foreigners, that the Queen was going to remedy.
[00:41:53] Thurston Twigg-Smith: I think you'll find that even the earlier constitutions had property requirements, however. It wasn't a new invention in 1887.
[00:42:02] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Okay.
[00:42:03] Thurston Twigg-Smith: And Andrew, you generated an interesting conversation.
[00:42:07] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Yeah, you guys got really heavy real quick.
[00:42:09] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Andrew, I I've got to move on to get some more voices heard. Thank you for your call this morning. Let's go to Steve from Honolulu. Good morning, Steve.
[00:42:16] Caller: Good morning. Excellent discussion. Um, I would like to say that, um, what we're listening to today is not what when we call low cost history. Um, by low cost history, I mean, history in which no one has a stake. Obviously if you discuss things like the Gothic invasion of Rome, I mean, there're not a lot of Goths around, not a lot of Romans around to worry about which side you come out on. But in this case, there there are there's a lot of of psychological freight and I think that it probably has a a real effect on on the way we look at these things. And I think one of the things we should bring into the conversation is a debate that's going on among professional historians now, which is basically, this revolves around the realization that history is not something that happened in the past. History is what we say in the present about what happened in the past. So the history is ongoing uh process, but it's always in the present, actually. It's always how the present constructs or views the past. And obviously that it's almost impossible to do that totally without any interest. However, one can try to to to detach oneself to some extent. And I think Daviana said quite clearly that when when asked, uh do do you do you think your past has relationship? She said, yes, yes it does. And that this is very important to her. And here I think one is pointing out something about the present process. What you're doing now is pointing out to me what the present process, which is that the the folks in Hawaii who identify themselves as Hawaiian are in the process of refining themselves, reidentifying themselves. Their numbers have grown greatly since, of course, since the 1900 and they've grown greatly by the addition of lots of people who are who have many other backgrounds but who have chosen, who've made a conscious act to choose to identify with that part of their background, which is Hawaiian. And in making that choice, they've had to eliminate some other things and they've had to refine and redefine and uh uh take another look at what it meant to be Hawaiian. And I think when we when we watch what's happening on this program, and when we watch what Daviana has to say, I think we're really watching that redefinition process of a group of people who are talking about themselves in the present. Although this is in the guise of history and I'd like to hear a reaction to that.
[00:44:35] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Okay. Uh, quick reaction. Um, Daviana, why don't you start and then we'll go to Twig.
[00:44:40] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Well, I think what we're trying to do is rectify the current injustices that have a historical roots and um I very careful when I go back into the history to distinguish where are the voices of the Hawaiians, where are the voices of the Chinese, where are the voices of the Japanese and where are the voices of the uh Haole who have come to Hawaii. So, it um, while I have a a point of view, I think as I go back, we we're trying to accurately represent what were the different balance of interests. It's to no one's benefit to misrepresent that um the fact that there certainly was no consensus, there were different interests. There are and there are different interests today just as there were back then. There was certainly no consensus back then. There's hardly a consensus at this point in time, but what we need to do is to understand what those interests are rooted in and the balance of of interests at any one point in time.
[00:45:37] Thurston Twigg-Smith: I think one of the things we ought to avoid in this process and I agree with with with you that there is a process going on here is up here is then the congressional resolution. I I've divided up those 37 whereas clauses into various kinds and there's quite a bunch of them that go all toward the point of erroneously, I believe of making out the Hawaiians as victims that Daviana has touched on that here. They the clauses for example let's say that this government was put in place without the consent of the native Hawaiian people or the lawful government in violation of treaties and international laws, what is clause number eight in there. And that would have negated the whole American revolution if you couldn't do things of that type, but in this, you know, it's just that there had to be victims there. And then they the Hawaiians were transferred according to the resolution, 26, 25 and 26 clauses without the consent of or compensation to the native Hawaiian people or their sovereign government. And the sovereign government was the Republic at that time in 1898 and the legislature included native Hawaiians and they voted unanimously for annexation and as we know those lands were government lands that went into a trust and have come back to us now and they're still here. But as you go through that congressional policy, there are half a dozen clauses that really simply go to the question of we are victims and that that is not a healthy way to approach it. There are others that are simply errors of fact. And even though there is confusion in history, there are certain irrefutable facts that do emerge and those need to be looked at.
[00:47:13] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Okay. Steve, I I'm I you made an excellent comment in asking your question and I'm going to have to move on to listen to some other people. I've got a feeling you'd like to ask a follow-up question, but I I do need to move on.
[00:47:24] Caller: Thank you very much.
[00:47:25] Thurston Twigg-Smith: You bet. You know, related to what both of you said in response to to Steve's comments slash question, is there one source or a couple of sources that people could go to that each of you would say provides a pretty accurate, relatively balanced, unbiased description of what happened because obviously when you start talking about an interpretation, that's when often times the background of the historian comes through. Daviana, is there a place like that that people can go to?
[00:47:55] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Well, I think you know, you don't do yourself benefit if you don't look at all the points of view and and how it's reported. But I guess there are two books by Russ, the American I mean sorry the the which he calls the Revolution and then the Republic, I believe, um, which does a good job of of documenting all the points of view, I think. Um, but you shouldn't overlook the Queen's story, uh, Hawaii story by Hawaii's Queen uh or um the memoirs of um Lauren Thurston because you you you need to look at what were we're being spoken of at both points in time. Um, Kai Kendal provides a good analysis, but he only goes up to um the overthrow because he passed away before he completed writing that third volume. Um, and I think Gavin Daws does does a a job of then following up on what Kai Kendal did. But um it you know, they all of these are lacking still because they they don't they haven't gone to the Hawaiian record and looked at the Hawaiian language newspapers and looked at what was going on within the Hawaiian community. Um and so even even those that are the existing histories that are written do not adequately document all of the voices and point of view.
[00:49:21] Thurston Twigg-Smith: I think one of the things we ought to avoid in this process and I agree with with with you that there is a process going on here is up here is then the congressional resolution. I I've divided up those 37 whereas clauses into various kinds and there's quite a bunch of them that go all toward the point of erroneously, I believe of making out the Hawaiians as victims that Daviana has touched on that here. They the clauses for example let's say that this government was put in place without the consent of the native Hawaiian people or the lawful government in violation of treaties and international laws, what is clause number eight in there. And that would have negated the whole American revolution if you couldn't do things of that type, but in this, you know, it's just that there had to be victims there. And then they the Hawaiians were transferred according to the resolution, 26, 25 and 26 clauses without the consent of or compensation to the native Hawaiian people or their sovereign government. And the sovereign government was the Republic at that time in 1898 and the legislature included native Hawaiians and they voted unanimously for annexation and as we know those lands were government lands that went into a trust and have come back to us now and they're still here. But as you go through that congressional policy, there are half a dozen clauses that really simply go to the question of we are victims and that that is not a healthy way to approach it. There are others that are simply errors of fact. And even though there is confusion in history, there are certain irrefutable facts that do emerge and those need to be looked at.
[00:50:12] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Okay. Well, let's uh let's move on and I guess because we're getting down to the last 15 minutes I should remind people or let people who tuned in late know this is the Price of Paradise radio show. My name is Randy Roth. We're talking about the events surrounding the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. Um we've got more people waiting than we're going to have time to get to and so don't uh don't bother calling us now. But if you'd like to have your voice heard, go to the internet www.popweb.org. Uh, interestingly, two of the articles that appear in this morning's Advertiser first appeared earlier this week as comments on PopWeb and we like to think that PopWeb is a great place to go to hear what people in the community are saying about important issues and to um put your two bits in as well. So if you have access to the internet, it's popweb.org. We'd like to hear from you. Um, let's go to Murl from uh Waianae. Good morning, Murl.
[00:51:06] Caller: Good morning. Yes. Yes, I have a two part question. The first uh part of the question is, seeing how the uh that the treaties were in place at this time, uh I feel that the Queen must have felt that there there wouldn't be an overthrow because the treaties were already in place. The other question is, these uh these members that was on the safety committee, the 13 members, uh it's my understanding that those people was educated in the United States and uh they also took law and all that and they brought that back over here. It looks to me like the United States already knew uh what they were planning on doing at that time.
[00:51:49] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Okay, let's let's get a quick reaction. First from Twig then Davey.
[00:51:52] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Well, that that committee of safety included the majority of its members were subjects of the kingdom. There were in those seven subjects five people who had been Americans and who had been educated to some degree in the United States, but three of them were actually born here and two of them were naturalized of those five Americans. And then there were two Europeans who were naturalized and were Hawaiian subjects. And the other uh six people, four of them were Americans and two were European citizens. But uh I don't think uh First place you mentioned treaties there are no treaties between the Queen and her people. That was just a question of I suppose I'm your boss and and you're my people and this is the way we're going to do it unless you object and they objected. There were the treaties between the Hawaii and the United States were uh not applicable to the revolution, they were treaties like the reciprocity treaty and other things like that.
[00:52:45] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Well, I think the um original tree the 1842 treaty which recognized the independence of Hawaii was probably what um gentleman was referring to and um the treaties of of I'm sorry reciprocity the um relating to the uh uh transfer ceding of Pearl Harbor to the United States in return for uh release from the tariff um duties, uh actually were overturned by the McKinley tariff and that was one of the problems uh that the sugar planters were reacting to. But yes, the Queen I think looked to the the earlier treaties that were negotiated by her predecessors between the US and Hawaii as guaranteeing the independence of Hawaii.
[00:53:32] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Murl, I appreciate your call. We've got a couple people who have been waiting a long time so I'm going to have to move on, but thank you for calling this morning.
[00:53:38] Caller: Yeah, thank you.
[00:53:39] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Ron from Kona, good morning. You're on the air.
[00:53:42] Caller: Good morning, Aloha.
[00:53:44] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Aloha.
[00:53:44] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: Aloha.
[00:53:45] Caller: How are you? I'll um try and get these questions quick 'cause they're heavy. Um if the Hawaiian people would have uh resisted the United States forces, that would have made it an overthrow. According to the laws of nations, which were controlling body of international law at the time, if there was no war, there was no overthrow. This is evidenced by um the State of Hawaii court's claim in 1997, they claimed their authority from Liliuokalani in HRS 601-1 and the foundation of HRS 1-1. And um I'd like to get one point across, especially to Twig. Um if you also look at the United States codes, title 42, section 11701, it talks about all the nasty things that happening to the Kanaka Maoli people at this time. Um if you look at uh what's happened to the Pailohana that basically the same thing that happened to Liliuokalani, an armed takeover and people were forcibly taken away from their lands. So I and I don't think welfare is a good excuse in 1997, yeah, when especially these are their lands or our lands.
[00:54:57] Thurston Twigg-Smith: Okay. Ron, let me let me take that as a comment. Is that all right? And in and well I'd like to hear Twig's response to why they claim their authority from Liliuokalani in 1997. Okay, let's get a quick response to that and then I want to hear from the other people who have been waiting a long time. I don't I don't get the connection between the Liliuokalani's laws in 1997 and us today. I I don't understand that.
[00:55:21] Caller: They're still they're still in the courts. I mean the the whole State of Hawaii courts claim their authority from Liliuokalani. That would indicate that there was no overthrow. No, I think because overthrow is a war and absolute destruction of the laws of that land you know. Yeah, I I think that that there is an argument being made along that line, but I don't I certainly don't give it much substance. I think today it's recognized that we're a state of the United States and the laws that we're operating under are the laws of the United States, the constitution, the United States. And the constitution, the state of Hawaii. Well, I mean, that's the amazing thing that the the state of Hawaii was created in 1959. Why in 1997 do they still claim their authority from Liliuokalani? I don't think they do. Okay. We've got a difference of opinion here, Ron, and I appreciate your calling and voicing yours. Uh, we do Aloha. Just look it up in the law, that's all I ask. Okay, thank you, Ron. We appreciate you. You welcome. Let's go to Vincent from Maui. Good morning, Vincent. Good morning. Aloha. Aloha. Aloha.
[00:56:19] Caller: Um, I'm an Italian American uh farmer here on Maui and I'm married to a Hawaiian Chinese farmer. Um and uh Daviana, I I met you on in the early 80s, so I wanted to say hi. Hi. Um, and also, this is not to make uh because I know Daviana, Twig, this is not to make you wrong um or anybody wrong for this matter. What I'd like to know is with the with the annexation and with the um revolution, uh there's talk about all this uh um back and forth, why is it that the Hawaiians aren't being honored in their what they've left behind.
[01:02:18] Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor: What we need to do is to restore that nation uh through the efforts of the Hawaiian people but with the recognition from the um other people in Hawaii and I think um we continue to seek the right of self-determination to uh restore our rights as a as a sovereign people.
[01:02:38] Randall Roth: Okay. Well, I want to thank both of you. Davion McGregor is an associate professor at the University of Hawaii in the ethnic studies department and Thurstan Twig Smith is a part-time philanthropist, an amateur historian. Uh I must tell you that given just how controversial this topic is, I really admire the way each of you have have engaged in this conversation in dealing with each other. You've been gracious, considerate, respectful, patient, uh everything that I admire in terms of of having a healthy conversation about a controversial issue.
[01:03:11] Randall Roth: The producer of the Price of Paradise Radio show is Suzy Roth, our technical wizard is Jeff Iri. You've been listening to the Price of Paradise Radio show. I'm Randy Roth. Aloha.