Customer Reviews

Hawaiian Sovereignty: Do the Facts Matter

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Thurston Twigg-Smith has a family stake in getting his view of Hawaii's history out--his grandfather was Lorrin Thurston, one of the key people in the movement that toppled Hawaii's monarchy. Smith begins his book by acknowledging this relationship and personalizes it by telling a story about a little boy asking him, "Why did your granpa steal my land?" as his mother looked on and smirked. Thurston Twigg-Smith has a very different take on the annexation period than many other historians. He sees himself as a voice of reason calling against a rush of historical revisionists. Though I do not always agree with his take on historical events, I find him a readable and persuasive author. My problem with his work is that I sometimes find him defensive of the annexationists and too dismissive of charges made against them. Smith seems determined to describe the revolt against the monacrchy as a gentle process. He frequently refers to the overthrow of the monarchy as a "Bloodless Revolution." I doubt that Leialoha, the policeman shot at point-blank range by John Good, considered the revolution "bloodless." In Chapter 5 he defends revolution as follows: "Those who led the revolt were changing a form of government by a method with long historical and legal precedent." Legal and historical precedent? Was V. Lenin exercising a legal precedent when he toppled the Romanovs? Would he extend that same justification to Ho Chi Min and Fidel Castro?
A more prescient question would be, "Does Smith extend that same view to Robert Wilcox, the very colorful gentleman who led an unsuccessful counter revolt against the Lorrin Thurston and the Provisional Government he helped set up after displacing Hawaii's royalty?"
My overall impression of Hawaiian Sovereignty: Do the Facts Matter is that it is a well-written and well-researched book with a somewhat pre-determined agenda. That said, I still recommend Smith's book. It is worth noting that there are two sides to this historical debate. Agree or disagree with his interpretation, Smith has a legitimate point of view and he defends it eloquently.

If you're sick of hearing how we Hawaiians were victimized by unscrupulous missionaries and had our idyllic kingdom stolen from us by American businessmen, you might like reading a re-revisionist history of the Annexation. Twigg Smith seems the ideal author for such a history: a journalist, a kama'aina, a direct descendant of missionaries and of a prominent Annexationist. The author clearly did a lot of research of obscure original sources, and should have had a great history to tell. Unfortunately his book is highly repetitive, argumentative, repetitive, poorly edited, and did I say repetitive? This would have been a better book if the author had submitted it to an editor's discipline.

I wanted to get a different perspective on the Hawaiian Annexation than the politically correct version that now seems almost obligatory. I realize it's difficult to be objective where commerce, imperialism, victimhood, and aloha a'ina are at stake, but I hope somebody else takes a shot at it.

The book is written with the express intention of addressing the political debate about whether Native Hawaiian people deserve some form or reparations or special sovereignty in the State of Hawaii. The idea is to go over the actual facts of both the overthrow of the last Hawaiian Queen L, and the subsequent annexation of the islands an their lands by the United States.

Twigg-Smith (hereafter T-S for brevity) makes a good case that the overthrow was an indigenous event, driven by years of building frustrations with the profligate and corrupt behavior of the post-Kamehameha monarchs. He also shows that there is no truth to the claim there was "official" U.S. assistance from the military or the U.S. minister in the islands in the overthrow as well. However, I was not persuaded by his claim that the U.S. is totally blameless. His own evidence shows clearly that the leaders of the Revolution (as it came to be called) were all non-Hawaiians and all strong supporters of American annexation, and that the U.S. Minister himself had publicly proclaimed his own support for annexation prior to the Revolution. American troops were in fact landed in Honolulu during the crisis and while the record clearly shows that the troops did not interfere with either side, it was perfectly logical for the Queen's supporters (the Royalists) to believe that the U.S. minister was in fact using the troops to support the Revolution of his fellow annexationists. The belief that the Americans would attack if the Royalists tried to retake the capitol building was the specific reason the Queen surrendered rather than fight. So while the U.S. may not have actively participated in the Revolution, it clearly played a powerful political role in ensuring its success.

T-S does clearly show, however, anti-annexation sentiment in Washington D.C. at the time led to the false assertion that the U.S. DID act improperly, and to the brief, half-hearted U.S. efforts to restore the Queen - efforts that went so far as to illegally allow a shipment of weapons from San Francisco to her supporters that were used in a failed counter-Revolution.

The author also clearly shows that there is no truth to the idea that island lands were "stolen" by the U.S. as a result of annexation. It's clear from the record that all Hawaiian state lands became territory lands that were eventually ceded, virtually intact, to the new State of Hawaii in 1959. The Hawaiian government itself managed the transfers and except for lands taken for the U.S. military, there is no evidence of any changes to land ownership from annexation to the present that were not strictly legal under U.S. law and approved by the territorial legislature.

T-S doesn't succeed in his final goal of presenting a scheme for a unified front that might bring together activists for sovereignty as well as those who don't accept sovereignty or reparations as legitimate. This last section, a combination of moral exhortation and small-bore proposals, wasn't very persuasive.

However, there is one point T-S makes that should have gotten more attention. The Supreme Court in the last two decades has slowly destroyed all the legal foundations for race- or ethnicity-based preferences in government programs. Yet the Hawaiian state government currently operates many programs specifically benefitting Native Hawaiians. All of these programs are likely illegal under the new rules laid out by the conservative court. One good legal challenge could easily devastate these programs and cause real chaos about how to proceed.

This is not an easy or fun book. The style of writing is leaden and the author tries to make so many different points as he goes along that the result is a dense and difficult read. Only brave or obsessive readers are likely to make it all the way through this book and that is too bad, because there is a lot of valuable information compiled here that is not to be found in most other published sources.

So many books on the same subject! No other rendition to date is so well documented, nor is any other as well written. Ho'omaikai from a Hawaiian, who looks at the facts. Kapena

This book is an example of the Dunning school of historiography.

Although most history is a dry read, Thurston does a passable job of bringing some life into the process. Although there will be those who see his tome as a misrepresentation of the facts, he keeps a clear neutral tone throughout and gives a broader and deeper perspective than most activists would dare. I think that the knee-jerk reaction to associate Native Hawaiians with Native Americans and their plight is part of the emotional reponse that some people have to his detailed history. Hopefully one can read this book and realize that there was no Trail of Tears in Hawaii, and that all hawaiians (kanaka and otherwise) can be proud of their heritage and mixed cultures.

It is true that this is a slightly difficult read, but only because Mr. Twigg-Smith attempts to be so thorough, and therefore sometimes resorts to redundancy to drive his points home. But it is not as difficult as some have indicated, for those who are truly interested in the topic. I think Mr. Twigg-Smith has done an admirable job of thoroughly researching, presenting, and footnoting his facts. The margin notes are helpful in synopsizing most paragraphs in the book, and in re-locating paragraphs for later reference.

I admit that I have obvious political leanings, and that I now have an opinion on this subject, but I think it is important to note that those most critical of the book: 1. seem to have a political agenda; 2. attack Mr. Twigg-Smith personally, rather than factually (Mr. Smithers on The Simpsons?); 3. offer up Queen Liliuokalani's version of events as "true" (and just how do they know that? Because they believe it?); 4. offer up the Blount & Morgan report as the only other "accurate" report, precisely because it supports their position; and, most importantly, 5. NEVER DISPUTE ANY, SPECIFIC, WELL-DOCUMENTED AND FOOTNOTED FACTS presented in the book! Talk about the inconvenient truth!

To those who would like to read another side of the argument, beyond the politically correct, Anti-U.S., revisionist history propounded by a vocal, few, perennial "victims" in the Socialist State of Hawaii, this is a must-read.

This book is the author's opinion on why his grandfather took the positions he took. Most books written about the 1893 fall of the Hawaiian Kingdom are biased in one form or another. Students in Hawaiian history wishing the unbaised facts should read Queen LILIUOKALANI's memoirs " HAWAII'S STORY ". which is a true first hand account. This book along with the Blount & Morgan reports to Congress are available online to read free. Shocking after 100 years this book & Congressional reports remain the only accurate account of the 1893 fall of the Hawaiian Monarchy. All books written since then are biased in one form or another.

Interesting that a legit publisher wouldn't touch this shameless tome trying to justify the fact that crown land was stolen by Thurston's missionary grandpa, a grandpappy who knew being a publisher would help him brainwash the locals into thinking the Queen deserved to be unseated. Yep. And the present day Thurston, like his land grabbing ancestor, had to rely on the publishing arm of HIS kingdom to get this book in print. Think "Mr. Smithers" on THE SIMPSONS when you think of Thurston Twigg-Smith.

I bought Thurston Twigg-Smith's book, "Hawaiian Sovereignty: Do the Facts Matter?" at one of the shops at the Honolulu International Airport. The book was basically the author trying to defend his "great" grandfather in case there is a class action lawsuit brought by Hawaiians and Hawaiian nationals against his grandfather's estate. It was like I was reading Emperor Hirohito and Tojo Hideki's version of history.

A waste of my money and more importantly... my time. I want my money back. I also want the two days back that it took to read it.