Mutual Perspectives…
Afro/Asian-Am Studies 443 – Mutual Perspectives in inter-minority relations:
Japanese Americans, Kanaka Maoli and the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement
An ‘alamihi is a common black crab that lives among the rocks along Hawaiian shores. Crab catchers trap them in nets, and then dump them into buckets until the time comes to take them home for cooking. Critics of uncooperative Hawaiians love to compare them with the ‘alamihi, which always manage to pull down the ones who are trying to climb up and over the sides of the bucket. (Kanahele, 1986)
The Hawaiian Sovereignty movement made its presence known in the 1990s as the100th anniversary marking the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom by American and British imperialists seeking a greater political and economic stake in of the Hawaiian Islands. The centennial years after the overthrow of 1893, and annexation to the United States of America in 1898 were times of ethnic revival for Native Hawaiians sometimes referred as “Kanaka Maoli”, the indigenous people of Hawaii. The plight of the Kanaka Maoli is one that parallels that of the millions of indigenous people throughout time that have been subjected to the brutality of colonial rule and imperialism through western disease, religion, and foreign ideologies. Today they find themselves strangers in their own land, at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder, over represented in the criminal justice system, underrepresented in educational systems, politically stymied, ranking last of all other ethnic groups in infant mortality and health risks, and overly outnumbered in their own land at less than 0.8% of Hawaii’s population. The movement for Hawaiian Sovereignty represented the drive of the Kanaka Maoli for self-determination over what was rightfully theirs that had been displaced, namely their culture, language, and ancestral lands.
The resurgence of the Kanaka Maoli has created a spike in the previous paradigm of race relations in Hawaii that many cultural theorists and residents pride as Hawaii’s claim to fame: An idiosyncratic balance of inconsistent racial tolerance and relative cultural pluralism co-existing within a burnt out shell of a once rigidly stratified social plantation style hierarchy. Within this loose hierarchy of course, the Kanaka Maoli is at the bottom. From the perspective of the indigenous inhabitant of Hawaii, the opponent of the indigenous Kanaka Maoli is not merely the Haole (White), but in effect all outsiders who have come to call Hawaii their home for 3, 4, and 5 generations. Although initially subjected to instances of Haole racism and western imperialism, the descendents of these immigrants have established themselves within the communities of Hawaii; at the 3rd and 4th generations of Hawaiian Asians especially those of Japanese ancestry have elevated themselves from a position of mere laborers of the Haole elite, to powerful representatives in the State government.
One particular interaction between Native Hawaiian and Hawaiian-Japanese communities occurred in October of 1999 in a confrontation between one of the most vocal and radical activists of the Native Hawaiian sovereignty movement Mililani Trask, and the 4th senior member of the US Senate, Hawaii Senator Daniel K. Inouye (D). Out of frustrations revolving the political scheduling of anticipated federal hearings on Indian and Native Hawaiian affairs, Mililani Trask called Senator Inouye a “One-armed bandit”, as he was not helping the Native Hawaiians. Intentional or not, the added salt in the wound is the fact that Senator Inouye is a 442nd veteran, and Congressional Medal of Honor recipient who lost his right arm in battle.
Although this interaction may seem initially petty, throughout the course of history, and following the common progression of indigenous people around the world, the Kanaka Maoli today find themselves an ethnic minority in their own land, displaced in the case of Hawaii by the descendents of Japanese laborers that came to the islands back in the 19th century. Despite the struggles of the non-white immigrant, and the passage of time that has created a sense of home in Hawaii for the Hawaii-born Japanese, the transference of identity of the true “Hawaiian” to the “New Hawaiian” represents for some Kanaka Maoli a true displacement of their native culture. This identity is seen on many levels of political, cultural, and ideological, with Hawaiian-Japanese consisting of a large 20.3% of the population in 1996 yet since statehood in 1959 this group has made up approximately 50% of the state government officials and the public school system. In fact it is commonplace to associate Hawaiian-Japanese in the professional fields of Medicine, Law, Politics, Academia, Architecture; representation in such fields of prestige and influence no doubt shape the perceived identity and evidently racial background of a people and culture. To the rest of the US, partly due to the rest of America’s inability to recognize multicultural societies, “Hawaiian” almost immediately began to refer to those of Japanese descent as it is seen in several books written on the cultural studies of Hawaii circa 1947-1960. The Kanaka Maoli has been displaced. Added to the insult is the appeal of many Hawaiian-Japanese to consider themselves “Hawaiian”, or at the scourge of Mililani Trask’s sister Haunani-Kay, also one of the most active and vocal Sovereignty activists, the term “Hawaiian-at-heart”.
Beyond this, non-Natives who insist they too feel malama ‘aina [respect for the land] reproduce American ideology and its racist insistence that all people within America’s borders are the same. To such people, difference is a threat, especially when those who are different claim prior, historical residence as well as mistreatment, which must be addressed by those currently enjoying the fruits of genocide and dispossession. (Haunani-Kay Trask, From A Native Daughter 1993)
As the more radical activists may assert the Hawaiian-Japanese, riding on the sympathy of a victorious America and their Hawaiian identity borrowed from the Native culture used the Kanaka Maoli as a stepping stool up to challenge the Haole.
I will focus on the Realistic Conflict Theory (RCT) to test its usefulness in evaluating the interaction. Real life conflict between groups is the basis of RCT. This theory relies on a specific drive of human selfishness; a true social Darwinian explanation of economic competition, between designated groups relying on a simple cognitive balance of costs and rewards. The differences in the desires and goals between groups of people are the very foundation of conflict. RCT seeks to explain the sometimes-cutthroat endgame of race relations as being part of an extended game of “survival of the fittest”. Each racial group must compete for it’s place in the Arena or it will be surpassed by the other group, if the majority group does not dominate and exploit the others, another will rise and take it’s place. The secret to this game is to make sure your respective group never loses the advantage. Viewing that each group vies to compete for resources on every aspect of the socioeconomic, cultural, and political ladder, RCT proposes that unless there is a super ordinate goal that will benefit both groups, there is no real incentive for cooperative behavior. Without this component, conflict between the two groups ensues. It is this specific aspect of RCT that I will use to analyze the interactions between the Kanaka Maoli and the Hawaiian-Japanese. The super ordinate goal that is presented to both parties is in the form of a common enemy; the fact that contemporary Hawaiian society is in fact an offspring of the former plantation system of direct competition between groups is also supportive in the identity of their common opposition: the white Haole plantation owner. RCT should be adequate in explaining the shift of positive interaction between the Kanaka Maoli and the Hawaiian-Japanese enjoy as they are both recipients of Haole domination, and as their relations go sour as the Hawaiian-Japanese assume greater political and social power over the Haole.
For organizational purposes, and with respect to the lengthy historical context between the two groups, I have divided the history into five sections.
– Pre-history (Pre-western contact) unofficial contact (500AD-1868)
– Japanese immigration to Hawaii (1868-1893)
– Overthrow, annexation, and US territorial rule (1893-1954)
– Democratic Revolution, Statehood (1954-1972)
– Tourism, Hawaiian Sovereignty (1972-present day)
Pre-history (Pre-western contact) unofficial contact (500AD-1868)
Throughout this period interaction is brief between Japanese and Native Hawaiians, although we do see signs of RCT applying here clearly in which the Kanaka Maoli appeal to western technology as a means of gaining western tools and technology to further protect themselves from, ironically other westerners. This can be seen in every succeeding Hawaiian monarch, mainly as a response to the increasing presence of foreign powers and aggression. Curiously the Japanese presence in Hawaii does not appear to have much influence, no doubt due to the simple lack of.
The first officially recorded contact between Kanaka Maoli and Japanese occurs in 1860, following the end of the isolation era of the Tokugawa Shogunate that occurred from 1630-1858. During this time Japan closed its borders to all foreigners with the exception of certain port towns where trade was permitted. However ancient Hawaiian legend tells the tale of contact between Kanaka Maoli and shipwrecked Japanese fishermen drifting from the south seas of Japan to Hawaii sometime between 1000 1300 AD. Known in Japanese as Kuroshio, the Black Current sweeps across the Pacific Ocean from the southern island of Japan (Shikoku) to California, passing through the Hawaiian archipelago. They are reportedly rescued and eventually integrated into Hawaiian society. Legend also continues saying that there are several instances of strangers washing ashore in the periods before western contact.
Inadvertently, the Kuroshio became a rough-hewn bridge between the civilizations of feudal Japan and the stone-age world of the Hawaiian native. Across this bridge came not only the castaways but the artifacts of Japanese culture, several of which became incorporated into the indigenous lifestyle of the tolerant, friendly native. For example, the Hawaiian game of konane perhaps evolved from the Japanese game of go, the plumed standard state which Hawaiian royalty retained, the kahili, was possibly derivative of the Japanese keyari, the feathered or haired pike carried in feudal Japan as a symbol of rank. Early Japanese castaways probably even brought the first sugar cane to Hawaii. (Ogawa, Dennis, Kodomo no tame ni)
More modern evidence of interaction is seen in a Japanese shipwrecked sailor named Tsudaya picked up by a Russian ship and dropped off in Hawaii where her writes of his experiences in a journal entitled “Hawaii Kenbun Roku” (An account of things seen and heard in Hawaii). Yet another example is that of Manjiro in 1841, a shipwrecked Japanese subject who is eventually educated in America and risks his life to return to Tokugawa Japan under the Anglicized name of John Mung. It is true in modern times that a large amount of debris from Japanese fishing nets does end up on Hawaiian shorelines even today as a result of the current. Depending on the validity of these accounts, RCT loses some weight here as the subtle, yet possibly apparent influence of Japanese culture on the Native culture should appear as a threat, never to be even considered for incorporation into the majority host culture.
The Kanaka Maoli enters Western history books when a British Captain James Cook in search of the elusive Northwest Passage accidentally stumbles onto the Hawaiian Islands in 1778. At the time there is an estimated 1 million native inhabitants in the island chain living in an established and complex social, cultural, religious political and economic society. Captain Cook is killed after he attempts to kidnap an Ali’i (Chief) in 1779, but he is not the last westerner to arrive in the islands. Soon there are other ships arriving in Hawaii, bringing with them western goods, technology, and like any other account of western “discovery”: diseases.
King Kamehameha the great (reign 1795-1819) unifies the Islands in 1795 through bloody conquest with the help of western rifles and cannons to be the first Ali’i Chief to unify the Hawaiian islands under one rule, and begins the Kamehameha dynasty of the Hawaiian Kingdom. He maintains the traditional customs and ways of the Kanaka Maoli, however opening to foreign trade remarkably in the sandalwood trade with the Chinese city of Canton. Following the death of Kamehameha the Great, Kamehameha II (1819-1824) in 1819 with the guidance and support of his father’s favorite wife Queen Ka’ahumanu, challenge the ancient “kapu” system of social order and traditional religion embracing Christianity as the Kingdom’s new religion. At this time certain religious idols and Heiaus (temples) are destroyed ending some aspects of traditional authority given to Hawaiian Kahuna (priests), further empowering the monarchy. This embracing of western religions is seen in the establishment of Protestant and Christian missions as early as 1820 at the major port towns as the Sandalwood trade is joined by a growing whaling industry. Foreign influence increased in sheer numbers, the native population continued to drastically decline. By 1823 the Native population in the islands was estimated around 135,000 clearly affected by western diseases that are being introduced by the influx of contact with foreigners and missionaries.
Under King Kamehameha III, (1825-1854) the Hawaiian Kingdom establishes it’s first constitution, quite possibly at the urging pressures of foreign influence that is mounting greater every year. In 1843 Great Britain seizes control of Hawaii claiming it in the name of the British Empire. After six months the British Admiral Thomas restores the monarchy, and the Hawaiian flag is raised again. The incidents inspire Kamehameha III to make a statement that eventually becomes the State of Hawaii’s motto: “Ua mau ke ea o ka ‘aina I ka pono” meaning “The life of the land is preserved in righteousness”. 1848 the Great Mahele is instated into law permitting for the first time, Hawaiian land to be bought and owned by foreigners. Also in under his reign, foreigners are allowed to become naturalized subjects, interestingly they are able to hold dual citizenship rights in Hawaii as well as their country of origin. The Hawaiian Kingdom during this era becomes an established monarchy recognized by treaties with worldwide powers. Some of these countries included at the time of the overthrow include the United States of America, The British Empire, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Belgium, France, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Tahiti. During this time Chinese laborers are brought in to serve as a work force for the growing sugar industry.
RCT is very adequate in explaining the interactions between westerners and the Native Hawaiians as clear economic drives of colonialism and western exploitation is apparent much the same story around the world at this time. Adaptation and westernization of the Hawaiian is no doubt a response to the changing of the times. Of course, interaction between Japanese is limited out of sheer lack of contact, and a significant presence of Japanese nationals.
– Japanese immigration to Hawaii (1868-1893)
When Commodore Perry Sails into Tokyo harbor in American ironclad “black ships” in 1853 as in an act of gunboat diplomacy that forces open Japan’s opens the doors after centuries of isolation, it marks the beginning of the Meiji or restoration era for Japan. During this time the Hawaiian Kingdom takes on a more Nationalist approach towards self-rule as a response to increasing presence of foreign influence, especially western. This is seen in Kamehameha IV, (1854-1863) and Kamehameha V, (1863-1872) both represented a continued defiance toward western interference in Hawaii as he restores many crown powers away from western hands. William Charles Lunalilo (1873-1874) during his brief reign of 13 months abolishes the ownership of property as a requirement for voting rights in an effort at strengthening the voice of the Kanaka Maoli.
In the late 1860s about an increase in demand for Sugar from the post-civil war America prompts the establishment of sugar plantations in Hawaii. Foreign investors from Europe and the US arrive flood in business ventures. In 1868 150 gannen-mono issei (first generation) men arrive in Honolulu, the first laborers from Japan in Hawaii. They are put to work in the sugar plantations adding to the large numbers of Chinese. With numbers of Kanaka Maoli decimated to less than 50,000, King David Kalakaua (1874-1891) travels on a diplomatic visit to Tokyo in 1881 to encourage closer ties between the two Pacific kingdoms in addition to seeking contracted laborers to come and work in Hawaii’s sugar cane plantations. Kalakaua’s efforts are rewarded in 1885 in the form of 940 additional immigrants from Japan arriving in Honolulu aboard the City of Tokio. Some historians’ account of the visit as being racially motivated as Kalakaua is searching for an Asiatic race to replenish the Hawaiian stock as a precaution of the ever so present and increasing Haole presence in the islands.
If so, RCT could be used to explain this alliance between two non-Haole kingdoms putting aside their differences to unite against a common opposition, in this case the colonial western Haole. The citizens of Japan receive him grandly and mutual ties are created between the Kingdoms of Hawaii and Japan. So strong are the ties that an offer of marriage between the Crown Prince of Japan Prince Komatsu, and the Kalakaua’s niece Princess Kaiulani is suggested. This gesture is beneficial overall to the relations between the two kingdoms despite the fact that the offer is refused by Japan as a precaution against showing undiplomatic favoritism towards Hawaii over Western powers such as the United States and Great Britain. This example can be stretched again to further include RCT, as the Japan pushes away the opportunity of union to present them more positively in the world arena. At the time Japan was also under the bombardment by western pressures and dominations as the Empire rushed to modernize and become a respected world power.
As more Japanese arrive, Laborers from the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Portugal, America, Britain, Korea, Okinawa, Germany, as well as several other countries of origin join them. For years to come, Japanese laborers receive slightly better treatment and standards in the Hawaiian kingdom based on the relations between Hawaii and Japan, and also as part of the Haole plantation owners’ system of “divide and conquer”. The concept itself is one that pits groups of people against each other in classic RCT competition, as there are Native Hawaiians also working in the plantation fields, the interaction of our two target groups here no doubt follows that of the theory. The flow of Issei Laborers continue to stream into the islands along with “Picture Brides” as arranged marriages made overseas from Japan, which entails the establishment of Japanese families and communities in Hawaii. Buddhist and Shinto temples are built, Obon festivals are celebrated, as well as several other Japanese contributions to the growing ethnic plantation kingdom. The Japanese have arrived in Hawaii.
– Overthrow, annexation, and US territorial rule (1893-1954)
In these tumultuous years of the overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy, we see Interactions between the Japanese and Hawaiians to continue the trend of RCT unity against Haole imperialism as the growing demands of British and American interests continue to be sought at the expense of the non-Haole. In 1887 Kalakaua signs the “Bayonet Constitution” under armed threat by a small group of armed non-Hawaiian residents and businessmen seeking to restrict the voting rights of Hawaiian people and limiting the powers of the King. Kalaukaua’s sister, Lilio’ukalani succeeds the throne in 1891. She is extremely popular not only between Kanaka Maoli, and the immigrant labor population; she is also a Nationalist and expresses right away her desire to regain many of the powers and Hawaiian’s voting rights lost in the Bayonet Constitution through a new constitution, which she pursues in 1893.
Threatened by the new constitution’s potential influence on their investments, on January 14, 1893, 13 prominent foreign plantation owners and businessmen formed the “Committee of Public Safety” in protest of the queen’s proposed constitution. At the request of this self appointed committee, and the US representative minister to Hawaii, troops from the USS Boston that was stationed off shore of Honolulu harbor, were deployed into Honolulu to protect American interests. Several foreigners took up to arms, forming a citizen’s militia, backing the committee of Safety and its leaders. Japanese Laborers rally in support of the Queen brandishing Cane knives in Downtown Honolulu, for fear of anti-Japanese sentiment growing at the time in America. Fearing an armed conflict between a growing mob of loyalist Hawaiians, immigrant laborers and US troops, Queen Lilio’ukalani abdicates her throne under protest to the provisional government. Within an hour of the transfer of power, the newly proclaimed “Republic of Hawaii” drafts a treaty to request the annexation of Hawaii to the United States.
Upon hearing news of the overthrow, the Empire of Japan dispatches the battle cruiser Naniwa to Honolulu to protest the United State’s violation of international treaties. In Honolulu harbor the then Captain Tojo of the Naniwa defiantly refuses to recognize the newly formed Republic of Hawaii, by intimidating all foreign ships who enter Hawaiian waters and salute the Republic’s flag. Japan also voices dissent in the international arena, as the overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom becomes another example of Japan’s frustration with western imperialism, one that will eventually become fuel for the propaganda machine of the later fascist Japanese Imperial army. Some political theorists go as far as to say that the later attack on Pearl Harbor was possibly an act of revenge against the United States in an effort to liberate the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Despite debates in the US congress, the recommendation of US envoy Blount, and an anti-annexation statement from President Grover Cleveland, The “Republic of Hawaii” stands. At the time the ethnic composition of Hawaii is a confusing mixture, with Kanaka Maoli holding a slight majority when split among ethnicities, yet still a minority among non-natives.
Census of 1896 showed a total population in Hawaii of 109,020 inhabitants composed of 31,000 native Hawaiians; 24,400 Japanese; 15,100 Portuguese; 21,600 Chinese; 8,400 part Hawaiian and part foreign blood; 3,000; 2,200 British; 1,400 German; 479 Norwegian and French; and 1,055 of all other nationalities. Native Hawaiians made up 28 percent of the population; Japanese, 22 percent; Chinese 20 percent; Americans and Europeans, 22 percent; and mixed bloods, 8 percent. (Weston, Rubin F., Racism in U.S. Imperialism, 1972)
At almost equal numbers, Native Hawaiians and Japanese together represent a significant percentage of the population. In addition to the increased tensions in the years following the annexation there is a growing concern about the Japanese race. As a newly acquired territory of the American empire, Hawaii is no exception. In 1907 the empire of Japan sends the Russian Baltic fleet to the bottom of the north China Sea, signaling the first victory of a non-western power over an industrialized European country. In the territory concern over the growing Japanese community creates fears of the “yellow peril” which is extended to all persons of Asiatic and Polynesian stock. In fact, the large Japanese and Chinese population in Hawaii is one of the key items of debate that postpones Statehood until 1959. Dissent in the US congress, especially from the Southern states in the thought of a “Senator named ‘Moto’ ” that would result from a State of Hawaii, is more than enough to kill every suggestion of Statehood for the island territory. The formation of a “local” culture and identity is apparent mainly due to the close interactions and intermarriage between non-Haoles with each other, but also due to the distinctions between Haoles and non-Haoles progresses.
The racial character of Hawaii’s population was diversified greatly through immigration over the fifty-three year period. Three contrasting ethnic groups-Korean, Puerto Rican, and Filipino-were added to the earlier complicated racial pattern. There was also additional immigration and Portuguese in these years. By 1920 there were eleven major ethnic or racial groups: Hawaiian, part Hawaiian, Spanish, Puerto Rican, Portuguese, Haole, or other Caucasian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Filipino, and Negro. The Senate saw to it that the proposed bill was so constructed as to make sure that the government was in the hands of the whites that owned the property of the islands. In order to qualify for senator in the Hawaiian legislature, one had to be thirty years of age, and a male citizen of the US. He must have resided in the territory a minimum of three years, and be the owner in his own right of property worth $2000, or have during the preceding year earned $1000. (Weston, Rubin F., Racism in U.S. Imperialism, 1972)
Anti-local sentiment is also seen in 1931 the Massie affair breaks over the territory. The incident involves a racially heated trial of 4 “local” men accused of raping and beating the wife of Lt. Massie, a Naval officer stationed in Honolulu. Mass pandemonium ensues, with Haole military roaming the streets of Honolulu on a lookout for Hawaiian and Japanese rapists; racial tensions mount on the brink of a race riot. The details revolving the evidence and investigation of the case are incredibly corrupt, and after the accused including one Hawaiian, and a Japanese are eventually acquitted of rape, Sam Kaha’awai is murdered by Lt. Massie and his accomplices, after a controversial and racially heated trial, defendants are found guilty of manslaughter, and sentenced to the territorial governor’s office for a stay of 1 hour. 1941 December 7 attack on Pearl Harbor decimates United States Pacific Fleet, martial law is declared, and the loyalty of the large population of Japanese descent that inhabits the island chain. The former Hawaii National Guard, stripped of their weapons and uniforms is reactivated as the all-Nisei 100th Battalion and sent to Fort McCoy, WI to repeat their basic training. Eventually Americans of Japanese Ancestry from will join them all over the mainland along with more Hawaii Nisei to become the 442nd Regimental Combat team. Daniel K Inouye is among them.
The times of territorial rule over Hawaii represent a time of great racial and ethnic tension. Here the dynamics between Kanaka Maoli and Hawaii-born Japanese is again unified under the scrutiny and distrust applied to all non-Haole residents by the US government. In the case of the 100th battalion formation of Hawaiian-Japanese serves as a strong example for RCT as Hawaiian-Japanese redefine themselves as a group to prove their loyalty to the United States not merely as a source of greater positive social identity, but as a means of competition for a better stake in the American pie. There is one piece of information that weakens the RCT claim to this example: the fact that a significant number of “nisei” soldiers in the 100th and 442nd were of various ancestry, including Okinawan, Chinese, Portuguese, Korean, and of Native Hawaiian blood.
– Democratic Revolution, Statehood (1954-1972)
Following the end of WWII, Hawaii-born Nisei (2nd generation Japanese) returned from both the European and Pacific Theaters war heroes. Either serving in the MIS (Military information services) or the 1399th Engineer corps in the Pacific, or the 100th Battalion or highly decorated 442nd Regimental Combat Team in Europe the Hawaiian Japanese returned to the islands and America in extremely favorable light proving their loyalty as Americans despite racism as seen in Roosevelt’s 9066 relocation order, and overall anti-Japanese sentiments felt nationwide. Taking advantage of the GI bill, many attended college and returned to the islands with Bachelors degrees, which they used to establish successful businesses and professions. Others continued onto earn medical degrees, Law degrees, and PhDs. Here we begin to see a shift in the positive relations of the super ordinate goal as the power. In pursuit of an end to the last remnants of the plantation culture, the Democratic Party pushes the new cash cow industry of Hawaii, taking advantage of the exotic beauty of the islands and its culture. Tourism is addressed with the new booming American economy as Hawaii becomes the well packaged and commercialized vacation destination of the US. Backed by an powerful ILWU (International Longshoreman and Warehouseman Union), various trade unions, the Democratic Party, (consisting of an overwhelming majority of Nisei) wins the territorial election of 1954, and in 1959, Hawaii becomes the 50th state of the United States. It is a victory for the Democratic Party, one that Hawaiian-Japanese had been pushing for especially after the conclusion of WWII, as the only sure way for Hawaii-born Japanese to ensure their entitled rights as US citizens was through statehood. The final blow for the Kanaka Maoli, and an additional blow to the former Kingdom of Hawaii. And in 1962, a Nisei-backed Haole Democratic Governor is elected, both the house and the senate of the state legislature are Democratic, and a Nisei is sent to the US Senate, one Daniel K. Inouye.
In the days post-statehood, a new Hawaiian-Japanese dominated economy began to push for the new alternate of the Sugar industry, namely that of Tourism. As the newly admitted state, aggressive advertising, and promotions, Hawaii became the vacation spot of many as the now booming US economy. For the Kanaka Maoli, it was the beginning of yet another exploitive force of the Native, feeding into capitalistic desires. However this time it was the new Nisei Democrats packed and sold the exoticism of Native Hawaiian culture, distorting and commercializing Hawaii. A total exploitation of culture, Trask says. In more recent years, visitors from the mainland US declined tandem with an increase in another rich tourist from another part of the world: Japan. In a study on Japanese investments in Hawaii circa 1970, the authors provide subtle evidence of favoritism towards Japanese investors, quite possibly due to the large (and now politically influential) Hawaiian-Japanese state government.
In the days of the monarchy every outside investment was a foreign investment by definition. But since Hawaii acquired statehood, matters have become different. Hawaii is now an integral part of the US economy, in which a free flow of persons, resources, and trade between various states is guaranteed b y the US constitution. A state does not have the power to regulate or restrict commerce with foreign nations, as this right is reserved by the US constitution to the US congress (article 1, section 8-3)…….A foreigner who establishes a corporation in any one of the 50 states is entitled to transfer his funds freely among the states. Hence a foreign investment made in Hawaii through a California subsidiary of a foreign firm is in no way distinguishable from an investment made directly in Hawaii by a foreigner. (Heller, Japanese Investment in the United States, 1973)
Also notable is the fact that between 1964 and the time of this study in 1972, liberalization of Japanese tourism under the formerly tight Foreign exchange and foreign trade control law, the spending limit for each citizen abroad was raised from $500 per year to $600 per person, and then to $3000 in 1971, and ultimately eliminated in 1972. in 1973 the requirement that all transportation fees were to be paid in yen was also eliminated. It is almost safe to say that the Nisei Democratic party had something to do with this liberalization.
while Japanese-Americans make up 27 percent of the total population of Hawaii, they comprise 70 percent of all the employees of Japanese firms. Together with the 17.8 percent of Japanese nationals employed by these firms, a total of 88 percent of all employees are of Japanese extraction…..Among all ethnic groups, the Hawaiians (including part Hawaiians) seem to be the group that is discriminated against most strongly. Hawaiians make up 17.2 percent of the state’s population, but only 1.7 percent of the employees of Japanese firms in Hawaii…..A majority (56.9 percent ) of Japanese firms in Hawaii exclusively hire persons of Japanese extraction and do no have a single employee of any other ethnic group on their payroll. Naturally most of the small firms (88.2 percent) fall into this category., but even among the large firms we find 50 percent without a single employee of a different ethnic group. (Heller, Japanese Investment in the United States, 1973)
It would appear that the Hawaiian-Japanese sold out to their Japanese counterparts as a result of implied loyalty based on blood ties to the mother country. The RCT shift here is arguably apparent as the new exploiter of the Kanaka Maoli is in fact their former fellow recipient of Haole oppression.
– Tourism, Hawaiian Sovereignty (1972-present day)
Inspired by new visions of self determination from the American civil rights movement on the mainland fueled by what was known as the “Hawaiian Renaissance” in the 60s and 70s, when Native Hawaiians began to search and rediscover the “old” ways of their culture, previously hidden and damned by Christianity and western imperialism, commercialized and exploited by modern day capitalism. In recent years young Kanaka Maoli activists have verbally attacked the not only the institutions, but the people that have emerged over the past 200 years since first western contact with Hawaii, gradually decimating Kanaka Maoli in every aspect of existence, cultural, religious, economic, socially, to the point that they find themselves strangers and second-class citizens in their own ancestral lands. This time was marked with a resurgence of ancient dances, chants, song, art, ocean voyaging, language and religion, as well as economic and political revival as Kanaka Maoli gained legislative support towards the perpetuation of the Hawaiian culture and future. It was also a time of activism, as Kanaka Maoli rallied in defense of Hawaiian residents in Kalama valley faced eviction at the hands of the powerful Bishop Estate, established communities on ancestral lands ceded to the Federal government during the overthrow, as seen in the much regarded peaceful occupation of Kaho’olawe, the smallest island in the chain that had been turned over to the US military for target practice.
The conflict between the groups in modern times is very well expressed by Haunani-Kay Trask, political firebrand, tenured Professor, intellectual activist for the Hawaiian Sovereignty movement on her views of non-natives in Hawaii:
Immigrants to Hawaii, including both Haole (white) and Asians, cannot truly understand this cultural value of malama ‘aina (respect for the land) even when they feel some affection for Hawaii. Two thousand years of practicing a careful husbandry of the land and regarding it as a mother can never be and should near be claimed by recent arrivals to any Native shores. Such a claim amounts to an arrogation of Native status. -Haunani-Kay Trask Speech, Stanford University 1990
The paradigm presented in discussing the Hawaiian sovereignty movement is to put myself, as well as every person of color from such a context as beneficiaries of “white privilege” at the costs of the indigenous peoples, namely Native Americans and Native Hawaiians. When it comes to the rights and sovereignty of indigenous peoples, the large majority of Americans suddenly find themselves as either exploiters, or beneficiaries of western imperial privilege. The plight of the native Hawaiian and the Native American is all too often cast aside or brushed under the table, diluted in the “melting pot” with an overwhelming mixture of not just Anglo-Saxon, but Asian, African, and Latino stocks.
As we come to modern times in Hawaii, the apparent power shift in the racial hierarchy in Hawaii has gone throughout history from that of the Kanaka Maoli, the indigenous people, to the western American and British plantation owners and missionaries, and then finally to the Hawaii-born Japanese. Throughout this journey the unifying quality of RCT pertaining to unions of different groups rallying along a common goal can be seen as both the Kanaka Maoli and the Hawaii-born Japanese are oppressed by the Haole, and we see today that the Hawaiian Japanese have become the “new Haole” so to say, further holding back the Native. However I am not convinced entirely by the explanation that RCT provides outside of this micro-level example of super ordinate unity of the Native and the Japanese against the Haole that was once apparent, but then lost.
My first contact with Hawaiian Sovereignty came in 1991 when activists and demonstrators all over Hawaii anticipating the 100th anniversary of the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom began to make their presence known. It was moving times in retrospect; one of rediscovery and learning of the course of history that had brought the islands to the status that it exists in today, as the 50th state of the United States of America. Well instilled through the educational institutions as well as through our family was the origin of contemporary Hawaiian society seen today as remnant of the Haole (White) dominated plantation system, the ironical promoter of a the racist and paternalistic system of divide and conquer that eventually gave way to a hybridized blend of more than a dozen different ethnic groups including the Haole. Though time and struggles, the descendants of former coolie laborers and contracted workers have found themselves at an elevated status in society, no longer under the complete domination to the Haole. Supported by legislation spearheaded by the Hawaiian Democrats and largely with the National influence of Senator Daniel Inouye, with cries of “Imua” (Forward!) and “Onipa’a” (stand steadfast) it seemed fitting that finally the people representing the native Hawaiian culture who had been dispossessed almost a century ago, could have a chance at reclaiming their dignity as well as expressing their sheer anger at the wrongs of an imperialistic and racist time.
My further study and interest in Hawaiian Sovereignty came on a more intellectual level came at the University level in doing a Persuasive-Informative speech for a Communication class; responding to the somewhat apathetic feedback I got from the class inspired me to become more active in the student organizations on campus, and in time had the chance to address issues of Hawaiian Sovereignty with other groups who shared a similar interest as indigenous people themselves, namely the Native American and Native Chicano/a groups. Yet still attempting to learn and understand the racial climate of the mainland US in inter-minority relations prevented me from pushing blindly in an attempt participating in the Native Hawaiian cause.
Namely it was the overall question of my motives for pushing the cause came into internal scrutiny for a simple, yet somewhat painful fact: I have no Native blood.
In the eyes of sovereignty activist such as the Trask sisters, the non-native has no place in the movement towards the Kanaka Maolis’ self-determination. Following a similar RCT approach, Haunani-Kay goes as far as to say that all non-native help is ultimately fruitless, and detrimental to the cause.
But in my view, this is not a bad state affairs, like Malcolm X, I believe white people should not join our cultural and political organizations. We must assert ourselves in our own way. And this means organizational separatism. (Haunani-Kay Trask, From a Native Daughter)
Trask mentions “White people” specifically. Applying the theories of RCT to the current inter-group dynamics between the Kanaka Maoli and Hawaii-born Japanese within the context of Hawaiian Sovereignty is extremely difficult for a number of reasons. On many facets as the theory applies to a more traditional model of two-group interactions, given the complicated history of race relations in the islands as well as the overlying presence of not only a third, fourth, but 7th 8th and 12th parties stand as a statement that both theories are limited in their explanations, although evidently useful. One cannot ignore of course, the most influential outside group that influences the interactions between Hawaiian and Japanese, namely the Haole.
As a Yonsei (4th generation) descendent of Okinawan, Chinese, and Japanese ancestry I enjoyed a solid middle-class upbringing, living in the affluent neighborhood of Manoa valley. I have uncles who served in the 100th and the 442nd who benefit today from not only their GI bill-financed college educations, but from the respect and loyalty that the local community instills upon them. I had the privilege of attending and graduating from Punahou, the prestigious Honolulu school that traditionally served the children of the elite Haole Missionaries and Plantation Owners, which without a doubt directly assisted me in attending the college up here in Madison. In almost every aspect I do represent the prototype for Kanaka Maoli animosity of the Japanese-American continues the institutionalized oppression and racism against the native people formerly inflicted by the dreaded Haole. From the perspective of a Hawaiian-Japanese, the target of potential Kanaka Maoli animosity according to RCT-I stand convinced, and almost afraid, guilty perhaps. However, I am still not convinced that things are this simple.
I must add that it came with a wave of initial frustration in the similarities of a western theory of RCT and a native saying of the ‘alamihi, as I have always been disturbed by theory that contradicts personal examples, especially exceptions to the rule.
However a second glance and interpretation of the saying brought me to a more unifying light-as that interactions between groups exist as a natural part of existence, theories such as RCT serve as but one perspective, and that alone. In search of evidence in history in support of RCT I have in a sense created an argument that sits quite soundly with an idea that quite possibly be as foreign and exploitive as the diseases that were brought by Captain Cook aboard a great white ship set sail in the pacific more than 200 years ago. I have actually struggled and searched for examples to support claim to this theory in the history of interactions between but two of the dozens of classifications that can be drawn in the construct of Hawaii. The fact of the matter is that although I may have found some evidence to support these claims, there is no doubt another layer and another example to be found that may in fact be the exception to the rule.
Valid and invalid points can be brought to light in any explanation, any theory-yet at the end of this semester in a class on race relations, discussing countless examples of ambiguous interactions between people of a variety of different colors, backgrounds, ethnicities, shapes and sizes, I can’t help but sometimes wonder which is the bigger and more dangerous ‘alamihi crab in this bucket of ours, the Hawaiian Japanese, the Kanaka Maoli, the Haole? Or is it the idea?
Ariyoshi, George R., With Obligation to All, Ariyoshi Foundation of Hawai’i, © 1997
Burrows, Edwin G., Hawaiian Americans: an account of the mingling of Japanese, Chinese, Polynesian, and American Cultures, Yale University Press, © 1947
Chang, Uncle Joe, “Racism and Hawaiian Sovereignty”, Ke Kia’i September 30, 1992
Haas, Michael, Institutional Racism: The Case of Hawaii, Praeger Press, © 1992
Heller, H. Robert, Heller, Emily E., Japanese Investment in the United States: With a Case Study of the Hawaiian Experience, Praeger Puvlishers, © 1974
Inouye, Daniel K., Elliot, Lawrence, Journey to Washington, Prentice-Hall, Inc., © 1967
Kanahele, George Hu’eu Sanford, Ku Kanaka Stand Tall: A search for Hawaiian values, University of Hawaii Press ©1986
Nakanishi, Don T., Hirano-Nakanishi, Marsha, The Education of Asian and Pacific Americans: Historical Perspectives and Prescriptions for the Future, Oryx Press, © 1983
Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Onipa’a: Five Days in the History of the Hawaiian Nation-Centennial Observance of the Overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy,
Office of Hawaiian Affairs, © 1994
Ogawa, Dennis, Kodomo no tame ni: For the sake of the children The Japanese American Experience in Hawaii, University Press of Hawaii, © 1978
Pratt, Richard C., Smith, Zachary, Hawaii Politics and Government: An American State in a Pacific World, University of Nebraska Press, © 2000
Rampell, Ed, “Three Faces of Sovereignty: Hawaiian Nationalists Debate the Nature of Self-Rule and Indigenous Citizenry”, Hawaii Magazine, April 1995 pg 74-79
Sakamoto, Edward, Hawaii No Ka Oi: The Kamiya Family Trilogy, University of Hawaii Press, © 1995
Stockes, Brian, “Senate Committee passes Hawaiian recognition bill”, Indian Country Today (Lakota Times), September 27, 2000
Tamura, Eileen H., Americanization, Acculturation, and Ethnic Identity: The Nisei Generation in Hawaii, University of Illinois Press, © 1994
Tehranian, Majid, Restructuring for Ethnic Peace: A Public Debate at the University of Hawaii, Spark M. Matsunaga Institute for Peace, University of Hawaii, © 1991
Trask, Haunani-Kay, From a Native Daughter: Colonialism and Sovereignty in Hawaii, Common Courage Press, ©1993
Trask, Haunani-Kay, Light in the Crevice Never Seen, Calx Books, Corvalis, Oregon, ©1994
Twigg-Smith, Thurston, Hawaiian Sovereignty: Do the Facts Matter?, Goodale Publishing, © 1998
Various Reader Letters, regarding Hawaiian Sovereignty, Honolulu Star Bulletin, 1997-2000
Whittaker, Elvi, The Mainland HAOLE: The White Experience in Hawaii, Columbia University Press © 1986
Wittermans-Pino, Elizabeth, Inter-Ethnic Relations in A Plural Society, Geboren Te Surabaja, Indonesie, 1964
Wood, Houston, Displacing Natives: The rhetorical production of Hawaii, Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, Inc, © 1999
Yamamoto, Eric, Ilima, Chris, “The Colonizer’s Story: The Supreme Court violates Native Hawaiian Sovereignty – Again”, Colorlines July 7, 2000