From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whitewash of U.S. citizens' involvement

User:Rjensen has twice deleted the phrase "largely at the hands of United States citizens" from the intro, claiming it is false and unsupported. However, other Wikipedia articles provide ample support. For example, from Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii:

The overthrow itself was started by newspaper publisher Lorrin Thurston, a Hawaiian subject and former Minister of the Interior who was the grandson of American missionaries, [1] and formally led by the Chairman of the Committee of Safety, Henry E. Cooper, an American lawyer. They derived their support primarily from the American and European business class residing in Hawaii and other supporters of the Reform Party of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Most of the leaders of the Committee of Safety that deposed the queen were United States and European citizens who were also Kingdom subjects. [2] [3] [4] They included legislators, government officers, and a Supreme Court Justice of the Hawaiian Kingdom. [5]

Jeff in CA ( talk) 05:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply

POV is when an editor selects facts to make a political point germane to his politics in 2018. It's a bad habit. All the leaders were permanent Hawaiian residents and only a minority were US citizens. As for the Queen-- her advisors were likewise mostly of European descent. The native Hawaiians had very little say one way or the other (likewise the large and fast growing Japanese element). The idea of tolerating an absolute monarch was very much out of fashion worldwide in 1890s (with Russia the main exception--and that one was assassinated). American influence had been dominant for 60 or more years in Hawaii. Rjensen ( talk) 05:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Then I suggest you modify all the other articles as well and explain why References 2, 3 and 4 below are incorrect. Jeff in CA ( talk) 19:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply
they seem to assume that the Queen planned to get rid of her actual advisors and replace them with people of old Hawaiian ancestry, and they seem to approve of this racist move. There is no evidence whatever of that. She had few such advisors or close associates at any time. She and nearly all her advisors were trained in American culture (not native Hawaiians) --she also mingled with Americans like her husband John Owen Dominis (born in New York). Her Her ministers and closest friends all opposed her attempt to impose a new constitution. Rjensen ( talk) 07:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Rjensen: This was brought up to me by User:Steve laudig. Pinging @ Jeff in CA: as well. Your politics in 2018 comment disregards the growing new scholarly research into the indigenous Hawaiian perspective which tells a different story. You’re version ascribe too much to older narrative that demonized the monarchy and blamed Kalakaua and Liliuokalani. It was revisionist history that skewed in favor of the overthrowers. Phrases such as “absolute power” (Kalakaua did not have absolute power; absolute power meant he could act unilaterally which he couldn’t, he ruled as a constitutional monarch but more powerful than other constitutional monarch such as in Britain; the last absolute Hawaiian monarch was Kamehameha III) and “when her army did not rally to her defense” (Hawaii didn’t have a standing army and she refused for her guards to act with force suspecting the US marines will reinforce the revolutionaries if she did). As for the involvement, it is indisputable that the instigators of the overthrow were white men composed of Hawaii-born American, naturalized subjects or foreigners of American or European descent. And Native Hawaiians definitely advised the queen and the growing prominence of Hawaiians in government and sense of nationalism was a contributing factor to why the white elite wanted annexation to the US as well. KAVEBEAR ( talk) 21:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

as the quote above states, "Most of the leaders of the Committee of Safety that deposed the queen were United States and European citizens who were also Kingdom subjects" they were citizens of Hawaii regardless of dual citizenship with US, UK, France and other countries. Rjensen ( talk) 22:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply
The ethnicity matters. Using another example, the American Revolution would have been much different if the Native Americans were the leaders of the revolution and not Anglo-American settlers. KAVEBEAR ( talk) 23:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Further breakdown of those involved: Six Hawaiian subjects (all white, four descend from the American missionaries), five American citizens with no Hawaiian citizenship, a German subject with no Hawaiian citizenship, and a British subject with no Hawaiian citizenship composed the committee of thirteen responsible for the overthrow. [1]. Many of the Hawaiian subject of American descent were educated in the US, lived there for a time and identified strongly as American (you can read this recent book Hawaiian by Birth: Missionary Children, Bicultural Identity, and U.S. Colonialism in the Pacific). Saying it was solely US citizen is wrong but saying it was solely the Hawaiian citizens (divorcing their white ethnicity and imperial era racism) acting is even worst. KAVEBEAR ( talk) 23:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Roark, James L.; Johnson, Michael P.; Cohen, Patricia Cline; Stage, Sarah; Hartmann, Susan M. (January 9, 2012). The American Promise, Combined Volume: A History of the United States. Bedford/St. Martin's. p. 660. ISBN  978-0-312-66312-4.
  2. ^ Vernon M. Briggs (January 1, 2003). Mass Immigration and the National Interest: Policy Directions for the New Century. M.E. Sharpe. p. 72. ISBN  978-0-7656-0934-2.
  3. ^ Vernon M. Briggs (2001). Immigration and American Unionism. Cornell University Press. p. 58. ISBN  0-8014-8710-2.
  4. ^ Tom Ginsburg; Rosalind Dixon (January 1, 2011). Comparative Constitutional Law. Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 181. ISBN  978-0-85793-121-4.
  5. ^ Andrade, Jr., Ernest (1996). Unconquerable Rebel: Robert W. Wilcox and Hawaiian Politics, 1880–1903. University Press of Colorado. p. 130. ISBN  0-87081-417-6. {{ cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= ( help)

Changing the name requires more consensus at the moment and changing two articles is not addressing the problem and can be viewed as disruptive.

I would like the get a definition of "consensus" and even the "notion" of consensus on matters of fact is also problematic. The objection that "changing two articles is not addressing the problem" I find a bit problematic as one must start somewhere and it's seems an invalid objection that since the change isn't universal it shouldn't be done at all. If the consensus is that 2 +2 is 5, its a consensus but not a correct answer:

Aloha KaveBEar:

Could we have a conversation about this point? I can be emailed at SteveLaudig@gmail.com. I believe that I can present evidence that there is a distinction that needs recognition between the term "Hawaiian Kingdom" and "Kingdom of Hawaii". They are not synonyms. I propose we discuss it since you object to the changes. The summary of the argument is that the "Kingdom of Hawai'i" would apply until unification after that the almost uniform reference made by the government itself as "Hawaiian Kingdom" not "Kingdom of Hawaii", as evidenced in official documents, including 1852 Constitution Title 1864 Constitution Art. 47 73 76

1887 Constitution Art. 11; 20 45 46 59 76 Signature page

Nearly all treaties use the term "King of Hawaiian Islands" The http://hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/Sweden_Norway_Treaty.pdf

I have found no instance of it systematically calling itself the "Kingdom of Hawaii"

This is just a sample. I assume we share an interest in factual accuracy. And the "Kingdom of Hawaii" is, in my opinion, inaccurate even if used.

If one searches on the term "Supreme Court of the Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands" one gets returns to the official court reports. So the executive branch refers to the country as the "Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands" as does the judicial branch. Likewise the legislative branch. https://books.google.com/books/about/Members_of_the_Hawaiian_Kingdom_House_of.html?id=XitqmQEACAAJ 


I don't quite follow this comment at all " The second link you provided is literally a fake book of an old Wikipedia category I created showing I had issues with consistency then. "

I provided two links. One to a treaty. The second was, if I understand what you are stating, a fake book text that you created and left laying around on the internet. May I suggest that all such fakes be labelled as such that they are not inadvertently, and innocently passed, on, as I did, here.

You have to understand how to use Google Books for research which was what I was saying when I point out you linked a fake source that mirrors a Wikipedia Category link. I left nothing laying around on the internet. Wikipedia encrypts anything created here online and I had no part in it and cannot do anything about these false links. The link is basically a fake book listing 72 pages of Wikipedia articles from Category:Members of the Hawaiian Kingdom House of Nobles. The link literally says “Source: Wikipedia”. KAVEBEAR ( talk) 03:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

But the factual point is that is that. I didn't provide links, thinking it unnecessary, to the Constitutions in which the term used in Article 46 of 1864 is. "This Body shall be styled the Legislature of the Hawaiian Kingdom."

So I suppose if I understand the terms of engagement here the issue needs to be discussed. As I am new to this I propose it be discussed and after discussion if it is deemed an erronous the error [or whatever one wishes to call it, that systematic steps be taken to explain and emend it.

I am interested in being enlightened as to the rules for the discussion. I don't see how confusion is engedered by a satisfactory explanatory noting things. If a professional historian is needed I can ask if he'd be willing to provide advice/suggestions on the historiography of the terms.

If I have omitted a step I look forward to being advised.

In sum the issue is rectifying/clarifying "Kingdom of Hawaii" [which did exist on Hawaii Island for a while] versus "Hawaiian Kingdom or Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands" which was the term Hawaiians came to use. And I think it is important consideration what the Hawaiians used, not non-Hawaiians however qualified they may, or may not be, as historians.

Mahalo and Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve laudig ( talk • contribs) 00:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Steve laudig, you sent a Wiki email to User:GreenC bot but that is a backend computer process that happened to make an edit to this page. You probably meant to email someone else you may be involved in a conversation with here. -- Green C 19:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC) reply
I second that notion. It seems that, perhaps, after "Hawaii Territory" was changed to "Territory of Hawai'i" and then to "State of Hawai'i", people began referring to what was always called the Hawaiian Kingdom to "Kingdom of Hawai'i." This is perhaps the reason for the proliferation and wide usage of the misnomer "Kingdom of Hawaii." I invite all to do historical research themselves, and see indeed the term Hawaiian Kingdom, and the term King of the Hawaiian Islands is constantly referred to in original documents. To not change the name of this article would make its title a historically inaccurate. Let's make the change. Cheers :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.117.161 ( talk) 04:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC) reply
This is likely a cause since looking at old newspapers. The proliferation of Kingdom of Hawaii dates before the advent of Wikipedia or the internet. It may also have been bolstered by the Apology Resolution which used KofH. KAVEBEAR ( talk) 00:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Requested move to Hawaiian Kingdom 3 July 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. The provided evidence shows that Hawaiian Kingdom is the common name for this country. ( non-admin closure) ​ —  Newslinger  talk 03:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC) reply

– Per above and this ngram showing that sources predominantly uses Hawaiian Kingdom. Further supporting prove should be forwarded as well. It would be problematic if Wikipedia is popularizing "Kingdom of Hawaii" because of naming conventions despite what the sources say. I want this to be a discussion of this large scale change and any oppose to be backed by sources rather than opinions. I've been sympathizing with the anon-editors who have been changing the naming convention and Steve Laudig for a long time but only opposed because of the logistic nightmare of switching over in every in-article text referring to Kingdom of Hawaii or Hawaiʻi to Hawaiian Kingdom. But now I think the logistics of switching over would not be problematic with the use of a bot or something. Not listed here are also all the categories containing the phrase "Kingdom of Hawaii". Pinging: Maile66, Steve laudig, Mark Miller KAVEBEAR ( talk) 23:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Other examples that Kingdom of X is not an absolute convention include: Merina Kingdom and Zulu Kingdom KAVEBEAR ( talk) 00:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support the change in article titles relating to the Kingdom. I also want to mention that I have access to copies of the Session Laws of Hawaii from the mid-1880s through 1892 -- the documents (which are the official government records of laws passed by the House of Nobles and House of Representatives and enacted by the Monarch) all make reference to the "Hawaiian Kingdom" rather than "Kingdom of Hawaii." @ KAVEBEAR: just out of curiosity, do you know why there is a spike in references to "Kingdom of Hawaii" in the ngram between about 1880 and 1910? Aoi (青い) ( talk) 00:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I don't really know. Ngrams are not that great to be honest. You have to search it on Google Books as well. Searching it: HK vs KoH shows that Hawaiian Kingdom was more readily use during this period. Another case for Hawaiian Kingdom may be the works of Ralph Simpson Kuykendall whose three volume work is probably the seminal history of Hawaii from the 20th century. KAVEBEAR ( talk) 00:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • The fact that Kuykendall uses the term is definitely also persuasive. Thanks for your reply, and thanks for taking the time to propose this change. Aoi (青い) ( talk) 00:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The third one in your list is an empire, not a kingdom. --Comment by Selfie City ( talk about my contributions) 14:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
We are just going back and forth with Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Also not many sources exist for the usage of British Kingdom, Yugoslav Kingdom or Italian Kingdom (at least with the uppercase K) while many sources do exist for the usage of "Hawaiian Kingdom". KAVEBEAR ( talk) 17:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Reliable sources? Could you name me a couple? --Comment by Selfie City ( talk about my contributions) 18:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Here is a few. KAVEBEAR ( talk) 00:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Secondary Sources - just based on titles of book alone not counting content

History of the Hawaiian Kingdom by Norris Whitfield Potter, ‎Lawrence M. Kasdon, ‎Ann Rayson
Palaces and Forts of the Hawaiian Kingdom: From Thatch to American Florentine by Walter F. Judd
The Hawaiian Kingdom: 1778-1854 : Foundation and transformation by Ralph Simpson Kuykendall
The Hawaiian Kingdom: 1854-1874: twenty critical years by Ralph Simpson Kuykendall
The Hawaiian Kingdom: 1874-1893, the Kalakaua dynasty by Ralph Simpson Kuykendall
Inventing Politics: A New Political Anthropology of the Hawaiian Kingdom by Juri Mykkänen
The Gods Depart: A Saga of the Hawaiian Kingdom by Kathleen Dickenson Mellen
The United States and the Hawaiian Kingdom: A Political History by Merze Tate
The Victorian visitors: an account of the Hawaiian Kingdom, 1861-1866, including the journal letters of Sophia Cracroft; extracts from the journals of Lady Franklin, and diaries and letters of Queen Emma of Hawaii. - technically this is a primary source but the title of the book is selected by the compiler
A tree in bud: the Hawaiian kingdom, 1889-1893 by Georges Sauvin

Primary Sources

Liliuokalani's declaration upon her overthrow [2]
1864, 1887, 1893 Constitutions of the Hawaiian Kingdom
Compiled Laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom
The Penal Code of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Compiled from the Penal Code of 1850
Treaties and Conventions Concluded Between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Other Powers, Since 1825
Statutes of the Hawaiian Kingdom Relating to Apprentices and Contract Laborer: With a Synopsis of Rulings and Decisions of the Supreme Court Thereon
Patent Laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom and Rules of Practice in the Patent Office
A Brief History of Land Titles in the Hawaiian Kingdom
I have withdrawn my oppose vote. --Comment by Selfie City ( talk about my contributions) 14:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Wouldn't Hawaiian Kingdom be potentially ambiguous with the pre-unification kingdoms of Kauai, Maui, Oahu etc, which could also be described as "Hawaiian kingdoms" given their locality in what are now called the Hawaiian islands? Opera hat ( talk) 15:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Well the current name is also ambiguous for the pre-conquest state of the Kingdom of Hawaii (island) ruled by the Keawe line which the Kamehameha dynasty was a part of. The unified state that was form in 1795 was the "Hawaiian Islands", but the predominant terminology for the state prior to 1893 was the "Hawaiian Kingdom" if you were to reference the constitutions of 1864, 1887 and 1893 and other diplomatic documents. To address the ambiguity, we can have a disambiguation page or tab for the Hawaiian kingdoms redirect. But at this point there are no articles for the pre-conquest states of Maui, Kauai, Oahu and Hawaii Island. KAVEBEAR ( talk) 17:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hawaiian Kingdom is NOT Kingdom of Hawaii

Please correct this error as soon as possible. As Wikipedia shows up at the top of search results, we don’t need this misnomer spreading any more.

The Hawaiian Kingdom refers to the unified state of all the Hawaiian islands. The Kingdom of Hawaii refers to the ISLAND of Hawaii - also known as the Big Island - which was a sovereign kingdom before the Hawaiian Kingdom was established.

You can’t just say “also know as” when they are two distinct legal entities. 72.234.106.107 ( talk) 19:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Hawaiian_Kingdom&oldid=1212530125"