In yesterday’s post “The San Francisco Call: Haywood Gratified, Mohailani Very Sad,” Mohailani appears to be a pseudo name, which is literally translated to “great sacrifice.” It was an emotional and comprehensive response of a bereaved person or persons. It is clear that the San Francisco Call knew whom to contact for responses and that “Mohailani” was someone that the Call was already familiar with.

The tenor of Mohailani’s response was definitely from someone who was already familiar with the Hawaiian opposition to annexation that included not just the men but also the women. This appears to point to the San Francisco Call’s coverage of the Hawaiian Patriotic League “Strangling Hands on a Nation’s Throat,” published September 30, 1897, and “Hawaii’s Last Struggle for Freedom,” published November 28, 1897. Both stories centered on a petition of over 21,000 signatures protesting annexation that was gathered by the Hawaiian Patriotic League.

The last story centered on a Hawaiian Commission that arrived in San Francisco on their way to Washington, D.C. James Kaulia, President of the Hawaiian Patriotic League, led a Hawaiian Commission of four men in order to present the signature petition to the United States Senate when it convened in December of 1897.

Could it be that “Mohailani” was the collective pseudo name for the Hawaiian Commission especially their stated loathe for Senator Morgan?

*************************************

Hawaii has sent four of her representative men to plead wit the United States before annexation is consummated. These men, forming a committee unique in the history of modern nations, have arrived in San Francisco. On Monday they will proceed to Washington.

The committee consists of two full-blooded Hawaiians and two half-Hawaiians. The leader of the delegation is Mr. James K. Kaulia, the president of the Hawaiian Patriotic League. There are, besides, Mr. David Kalauokalani, the leader of the second Hawaiian society, which differs only in its opinion on local matters from the Patriotic League; Mr. William Auld, who is a possessor of considerable property on the island of Oahu, and Mr. John Richardson, a lawyer from the island of Maui, whose command of English, as well as his ability as a lawyer, makes him the spokesman of the party.

Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kaulia were interviewed by the The Call yesterday upon their mission.

“We are going to Washington,” said Mr. Richardson, “with the hope of inducing the President and the Committee on Foreign Relations to listen to our side of the question. From documents in our possession we think we can convince any fair-minded man that the great majority of the natives of Hawaii are opposed to annexation. If, from our showing, the United States is not assured of this fact, we shall ask that a vote be taken.”

“A secret ballot?”

Mr. Richardson threw open his arms. “It doesn’t matter. Even if the ballot be open the very men who have refused to sign our memorial will vote against annexation.”

“Then some Hawaiians have refused to sign the petition against annexation?”

Mr. Kaulia, who had sat listening quietly, his grave face and dark eyes turned upon his more vivacious colleague, spoke now.

“Nearly twenty-one thousand Hawaiians have signed the memorial we are taking to Washington. The men, the natives, who have refused to sign, tell us that it would hurt their business or jeopardize their positions if their names were added to our petition. But they are with us in feeling, and as John—Mr. Richardson—says, if it comes to a vote, they will forget every other consideration, and remember only that their country is being taken from them.”

“Your committee has been sent to Washington by the Hawaiians.”

“Yes, we four have been chosen to speak for Hawaii,” said Mr. Richardson. “The natives have subscribed liberally to the fund which pays our expenses. Maui, the island of Maui, is the leader in this. At first the Hawaiians would not believe that there was really any danger of annexation. But on Maui—Maui is a unit on anti-annexation sentiment—we insisted that a delegation be sent. You know the native didn’t believe it possible that the United States would annex the islands, knowing the opposition of the Hawaiians. They wouldn’t believe that things could go so far.”

“And what is their opinion now?”

“Now they are thoroughly awakened to the danger. But they are hopeful—”

“The United States cannot,” interrupted Mr. Kaulia, “if it has any regard for justice, annex our country, after our protest. We have come to make known how the natives feel in the matter. I tried to see Senator Morgan when he was in Honolulu. Twice I wrote asking him when he could see me, when he could listen to us—he had listened long to the annexationists—but I received no answer. The natives are very bitter in their dislike of him, for they know how determined he is on annexation.”

“But there is considerable opposition,” said Mr. Richardson. “Senators Du Boise and Pittigrew, who came upon on the same steamer with us, have spent ten days on the islands. They see and admit the injustice that would be done the Hawaiians if their country were taken from them. Senator Du Boise says that he hasn’t met one native Hawaiian who is in favor of annexation, and he went as far as the island of Hawaii. He didn’t remain in Honolulu.”

“In case, though, of annexation, what will the Hawaiians do?”

Mr. Richardson spoke very seriously. “If the people of the United States take Hawaii the natives will have to kept down by force—as they are now.”

“We hope to convince your Government that the Government of the Islands was overthrown by means of American warships; that the present is not a representative Government, and that the Hawaiians will never be reconciled to the loss of nationality.”

“The members of the administration are doing everything in their power to bring about annexation. If they learn that they are not likely to succeed in this way they will try another. They will do as they did before—declare that their lives and property are in danger and ask that the American flag be raised. And we know, we Hawaiians, that if the flag goes up again it will never come down.”

“But what will you do about it?” Mr. Richardson was asked.

“We will fight,” he answered determinedly. “We will turn upon the administration, and we will fight before we let that flag go up again.”

“The Hawaiians are very peaceable people—very easy going and good natured. They do not become angry easily. It takes a great deal to rouse them. But they are roused now. They recognize that if resistance is to be made it must be now. They can fight—they will fight rather than allow their land, their own country, to be taken from them.”

This article in the San Francisco Call newspaper was sent by Willy Kauai, a doctoral candidate in Political Science at the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa. Kauai’s doctoral research centers on Hawaiian nationality or citizenship, which spans from its origin under the reign of King Kamehameha I, progenitor of the Hawaiian Kingdom, through its legal evolution during the 19^th century, and its maintenance under the laws of occupation to date.

Kauai’s research also addresses the racial discrimination injected into the population of the Hawaiian Islands since the usurpers seized temporary control of the Hawaiian government in 1887, which served as the precursor to the United States invasion and unlawful overthrow of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and the ultimate occupation since the Spanish-America War in 1898.  The title of Kauai’s dissertation is “E/racing Hawaiian Citizenship Amid US Occupation.” Kauai will be defending his dissertation in April 2014 and is expected to graduate the following month with his Ph.D. degree.

On July 28, 1898, the San Francisco Call newspaper published responses by individuals in the Hawaiian Islands as to their reaction to the passing of the joint resolution by the United States Congress to annex the Hawaiian Islands titled “Passing of Hawaii as a Nation: How News of Annexation is Received at the Islands.” One particular response was titled “Haywood Gratified, Mohailani Very Sad.” Just ten months earlier, the San Francisco Call published a front-page story covering Hawaiian opposition to annexation titled, “Strangling Hands Upon a Nation’s Throat.” As a result of this opposition the United States Senate was unable to ratify a so-called treaty of annexation signed between the insurgents and the McKinley administration. Unable to accomplish the task by treaty, annexationists in the Congress introduced a joint resolution, instead. The Congress knew that a joint resolution, being a Congressional law, had no force beyond the borders of the United States, but they disguised the process as if it did, through propaganda, in order to conceal an illegal occupation of a foreign State for military purposes.

*************************************

HONOLULU, July 20.—“I am naturally gratified that annexation has at last been accomplished,” said Consul General Haywood when the news of annexation reached him. “It is what I came to these islands to see done, and I am glad I have not had to go home disappointed. The United States has given to the people of these islands what I consider to be the greatest gift they could receive—American citizenship—which carries with it stable government and protection from the nations of the world. It only remains with the people here to make the most of the gift. This can only be done by forgetting past animosities and working harmoniously for the public good. Americans will then make of these islands not merely the paradise of the Pacific, but the Paradise of the world.”

HONOLULU, July 20.—To the Editor of the San Francisco Call: You ask me how we Hawaiians have received the news which has deprived us of our country and our nationality. I can only say that my countrymen are yet unable to realize the fact that the great republic which boasts of its democratic and republican principles has committed the unholy act which in history will be known as the “Rape of Hawaii.”

We had hoped that the joint resolution would be defeated in the Senate, and we were stunned when we learned of the vote, which results in the annihilation of our beloved country and in the driving to the wall of all Hawaiians. I can assure you that there is not one Hawaiian who in his heart favors annexation. What would you think of any man or woman who with indifference could see the flag of his or her country go down and their individually absorbed by a foreign race which, whatever you may say, does look down on us as their inferiors and despises our color and our way of living?

I can tell you, and few men have the opportunity of knowing the Hawaiians as I do, that many tears were shed when the news by the Coptic reached the homes of those who know no other country than these islands, which once were justly called the Paradise of the Pacific. We cannot be happy under our new conditions. We will feel like strangers among the people who will rule us, and with whose ideas, mode of living and political principles we cannot harmonize.

Our women feel it even worse than we men do. The teachings of the New England missionaries, the rum they brought with them, the diseases following in their train, have enervated the Hawaiian men. We can talk, don’t you forget it, but we cannot fight. If we had yet the fighting qualities of our ancestors, the overturn of our monarchy would never have taken place, and during the past years we would have been entitled to interference in the name of humanity in our struggles against the usurpers.

Our women have shown more energy, more solid patriotism and more strength than we have. The women of Hawaii to-day stand as a unit in their hatred toward America and everything American. And can you blame them? They see before them a future where their children will be forced into competition with your pushing, rushing, money-grabbing race. The dolce far niente of Hawaii must disappear and the struggle for life will begin in which the strongest will survive, and the gentle, indolent, easy-going Hawaiian will have no show in that battle for life, and who can blame us for feeling sad over a future which necessarily means destruction of our race?

I cannot deny that one great reason for our opposition to annexation is that we fear that we will be called “niggers” and treated as you do that class in your “free” country. We have been assured that such will not be the case, but experience tells us differently. Our countrymen who have traveled in the States have often been subjected to great humiliation and insult on account of their skin, and we expect that the day will come when we will risk similar affronts right in our streets, and remember that we have neither the wealth nor the inclination to strike our tents in other climes. We have no other home than Hawaii, and that home we have lost.

And what will our position be in the political and social life of these islands after your flag floats over the palace of our chiefs?

Senator Morgan of Alabama told a large assembly of Hawaiians, when he visited here, that he could promise them equal political rights with any American in any State of America. He told us that each of us would have as good a chance to become President of the United States as has Grover Cleveland. (I believe him in that.) He said that Hawaii would be a State, and that by the power of our majority we would control the affairs of Hawaii and enjoy true self-government. He paid a glowing tribute to our intelligence and excellent qualities, and told us how he loved “colored” people.

We didn’t believe a word of what that ex-slave driver from Alabama said, and there is no man more despised and loathed among the Hawaiians than Senator Morgan, who now is to frame a government for Hawaii.

The Hawaiians have at present no intention of taking any active interest in the government of their country. They feel like the children of Israel did when they sat down in exile and bemoaned their fate. What has happened cannot be undone, but none of us can see what your great country has gained by adding to the Union such unwilling and hostile people. We are not savages, as your Indians of Alaska, or ignorant as your “greasers.” For nearly a century we have conducted a fairly good government and lived in harmony with the white man who benefited from our hospitality and whose descendants now rob us of our country.

Go ask any man, woman or child what he thinks to-day of the “haole” (the foreigner), and you will get an answer in a very emphatic and plain language.

When Chinese and Japanese coolies are stopped from coming here as contract laborers we will have the satisfaction of laughing at the men who make their money out of slave labor and who brought on annexation to gain the benefit of the sugar bounty. But that satisfaction is very slim when we realize the fact that we will be trodden under foot by the invaders, and that when your flag, which we admire in its proper place, waves over Hawaii, to pronounce the fact that we are homeless and that our country has ceased to exist.

MOHAILANI

(It is not known who Mohailani is, but Hawaiians were known for using a pseudo name when authoring commentaries of a political nature. “Mohailani” is literally translated in the Hawaiian language as the “GREAT SACRIFICE.”)

In order to counter the prevailing sense of Hawaiian patriotism and love of country that was reported in the San Francisco Call newspaper in 1897, the Territorial government, which was illegally established in the Hawaiian Islands by the United States in 1900, embarked on a plan of institutionalized indoctrination in the public school system. One of the leading newspapers for the insurgents, who were now officials in the territorial government, printed a story on the upcoming plan to indoctrinate the children in its April 3, 1906 edition. The Hawaiian Gazette, reported:

“As a means of inculcating patriotism in the schools, the Board of Education has agreed upon a plan of patriotic observance to be followed in the celebration of notable days in American history, this plan being a composite drawn from the several submitted by teachers in the department for the consideration of the Board. It will be remembered that at the time of the celebration of the birthday of Benjamin Franklin, an agitation was begun looking to a better observance of these notable national days in the schools, as tending to inculcate patriotism in a school population that needed that kind of teaching, perhaps, more than the mainland children do—although patriotism is inculcated in the schools there also.”

“The matter was taken up by the school department, at once, and the teachers were asked to submit their views upon it. The result is embodied in the “patriotic program” printed herewith, which represents the best educational thought of the Territory. The program follows, and will be sent out officially in pamphlet form as a guide to teachers in the observance of national holidays in the schools:”

To view the entire article click “Patriotic Program for School Observance.”

According to the U.S. Library of Congress website Chronicling America, “The Hawaiian Gazette was a fervent advocate of the sugar industry and other American economic interests in Hawai‘i. Early on, these interests were in line with those of the Hawaiian monarchy; as such, the Hawaiian Gazette became the official newspaper of the Kingdom in 1865 under King Kamehameha V and was published by James H. Black and the Hawaiian government until 1873. In the mid-1870s, the paper turned decidedly anti-monarchy when the views of King Kalākaua and those of the local oligarchy—a powerful contingent of pro-American, pro-annexation sugar interests—began to diverge. The Hawaiian Gazette attacked Kalākaua’s government for what it regarded as wasteful spending on the King’s coronation ceremony and efforts to revive public performances of Hawaiian chanting and hula. It avidly supported the call for a new government, which was achieved in 1887 when the Bayonet Constitution effectively stripped the king of his power and secured the oligarchy’s political authority. At that time, the Hawaiian Gazette resumed its place as one of the government’s biggest advocates; indeed, several high-ranking members of the oligarchy, including William R. Castle and Sanford B. Dole, would oversee the newspaper in years to come. In January 1893, the paper was among several that refused to print Queen Liliu‘okalani’s protest against the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy and painted her efforts to reestablish the Kingdom’s authority as illegal and counterrevolutionary. Following the Queen’s overthrow on January 17, 1893, the Hawaiian Gazette published the proclamation and orders of the new Provisional Government and began referring to Liliu‘okalani as Hawai‘i’s ‘ex-Queen.’ Two weeks later, the paper asserted that it, together with the Pacific Commercial Advertiser , ‘contained the only true and extended account of the late revolution’ and encouraged readers to sign the Provisional Government’s loyalty oath.”

In the September 30, 1897 publication of the San Francisco Call newspaper, an article was published and authored by Miriam Michelson who was an American journalist and writer. The article was written as Michelson was leaving Honolulu harbor on board the Steamship Australia heading to San Francisco. Michelson was sent to the Hawaiian Islands to do a story on annexation. Her story centers on a signature petition against annexation being gathered throughout the islands by the Hawaiian Patriotic League (Hui Aloha ‘Aina) and she bears witness to one of those meetings in the city of Hilo on the Island of Hawai‘i.

It is a powerful article that speaks to the issue of annexation from the Hawaiian perspective and the article’s title clearly speaks to the veracity of what the reader will read. Not known at the time, however, was whether or not the signature petitions would prevent the United States Senate from ratifying the so-called treaty of annexation. Before the Senate convened in December of 1897, officers of the Hawaiian Patriotic League and the Hawaiian Political Association traveled to Washington, D.C. and met with Senator George Hoar of Massachusetts. Senator Hoar agreed to submit the signature petition onto the record of the Senate when it convened, and by March of 1898, the signature petition successfully killed the treaty as the Senate was unable to garner enough votes for ratification.

Here follows a snippet of the article, which is quite lengthy, but you can read it in its entirety by going to this link and downloading the entire article in PDF format. “Strangling Hands Upon A Nations Throat”

*****************************************************

The strongest memory I have of the islands is connected with the hall of the Salvation Army at Hilo, on the Island of Hawaii. It’s a crude little place, which holds about 300 people, I should think. The rough, uncovered rafters show above, and the bare walls are relieved only by Scriptural admonitions in English and Hawaiian:

“Boast not thyself of to-morrow.” “Without Christ there is no salvation.”

As I entered, the bell on the foreign church, up on one of the beautiful Hilo hills, was striking ten. The place was packed with natives, and outside stood a patient crowd unable to enter. It was a women’s meeting, but there were many men present. The women were dressed in Mother Hubbards of calico or cloth and wore sailor hats—white or black. The men were in coats and trousers of American make.

Presently the crowd parted and two women walked in, both very tall, dressed in handsome free-flowing trained gowns of black crepe-braided in black. They wore black kid gloves and large hats of black straw with black feathers. The taller of the two—a very queen in dignity and repose—wore nodding red roses in her hat, and about her neck and falling to the waist a long, thick necklace of closely strung, deep-red, coral-like flowers, with delicate ferns interspersed.

This was Mrs. Kuaihelani Campbell, the president of the Women’s Hawaiian Patriotic League. Her companion was the secretary of the branch in Hilo.

It was almost pitiful to note the reception of these two leaders—the dumb, almost adoring fondness in the women’s eyes; the absorbed, close interest in the men’s dark heavy faces.

After the enthusiasm had subsided the minister of the Hawaiian church arose. He is tall, blonde, fair faced, three-quarters white, as they say here. Clasping his hands in front and looking down over the bowed dark heads before him he made the short opening prayer. He held himself well, his sentences were short and his manner was simple.

There is something wonderfully effective in earnest prayer delivered in an ancient language with which one is unfamiliar. One hears not words, but tones. His feelings, not his reason, are appealed to. Freed of the limiting effects of stereotyped phrases the imagination supplies the sense. Like the Hebrew and the Latin the Hawaiian tongue seems to touch the primitive sources of one’s nature, to strip away the complicated armor with which civilization and worldliness have clothed us and to leave the emotions bare for that wonderful instrument, a man’s deep voice, to play upon.

The minister closed and a deep murmuring “Amen” from the people followed.

I watched Mrs. Emma Nawahi curiously as she rose to address the people. I have never heard two women talk in public in quite the same way. Would this Hawaiian woman be embarrassed or timid, or self-conscious or assertive?

Not any of these. Her manner had the simple directness that made Charlotte Perkins Stetson, two years ago, the most interesting speaker of the Woman’s Congress. But Mrs. Stetson’s pose is the most artistic of poses—a pretense of simplicity. This Hawaiian woman’s thoughts were of her subject, not of herself. There was an interesting impersonality about her delivery that kept my eyes fastened upon her while the interpreter at my side whispered his translation in short, detached phrases, hesitating now and then for a word, sometimes completing the thought with a gesture.

“We are weak people, we Hawaiians, and have no power unless we stand together,” read Mrs. Nawahi, frequently raising her eyes from her paper and at times altogether forgetting it.

“The United States is just—a land of liberty. The people there are the friends, the great friends of the weak. Let us tell them—let us show them that as they love their country and would suffer much before giving it up, so do we love our country, our Hawaii, and pray that they do not take it from us.”

“Our one hope is in standing firm—shoulder to shoulder, heart to heart. The voice of the people is the voice of God. Surely that great country across the ocean must hear our cry. By uniting our voices the sound will be carried on so they must hear us.”

“In this petition, which we offer for your signature to-day, you, women of Hawaii, have a chance to speak your mind. The men’s petition will be sent on by the men’s club as soon as the loyal men of Honolulu have signed it. There is nothing underhand, nothing deceitful in our way—our only way—of fighting. Everybody may see and may know of our petition. We have nothing to conceal. We have right on our side. This land is ours—our Hawaii. Say, shall we lose our nationality? Shall we be annexed to the United States? Aole loa. Aole loa.”

It didn’t require the interpreter’s word to make me understand the response. One could read negation, determination in every intent, dark face.

“Never!’ they say,” the man beside me muttered. “Never! they say. ‘No! No!’ they say-”

But the presiding officer, a woman, was introducing Mrs. Campbell to the people. Her large mouth parted in a pleased smile as the men and women stamped and shouted. She spoke only a few words, good-naturedly, hopefully. Once its seemed as though she were talking them all in her confidence, so sincere and soft was her voice as she leaned forward.

“Stand firm, my friends. Love of country means more to you and to me than anything else. Be brave; be strong. Have courage and patience. Our time will come. Sign this petition—those of you who love Hawaii. How many—how many will sign?”

She held up a gloved hand as she spoke, and in a moment the palms of hundreds of hands were turned toward her.

They were eloquent, those deep lined, broad, dark hands, with their short fingers and worn nails. They told of poverty, of work, of contact with the soil they claim. The woman who presided had said a few words to the people, when all at once I saw a thousand curious eyes turned upon me.

“What is it?” I asked the interpreter. “What did she say?”

He laughed. “‘A reporter is here,’ she says. She says to the people, ‘Tell how you feel. Then the Americans will know. Then they may listen.’”

A remarkable scene followed. One by one men and women rose and in a sentence or two in the rolling, broad voweled Hawaiian made a fervent profession of faith.

“My feeling,” declared a tall, broad-shouldered man, whose dark eyes were alight with enthusiasm. “This is my feeling: I love my country and I want to be independent—now and forever.”

“And my feeling is the same,” cried a stout, bold-faced woman, rising in the middle of the hall. “I love this land. I don’t want to be annexed.”

“This birthplace of mine I love as the American loves his. Would he wish to be annexed to another, greater land?”

“I am strongly opposed to annexation. How dare the people of the United States rob a people of their independence?”

“I want the American Government to do justice. America helped to dethrone Liliuokalani. She must be restored. Never shall we consent to annexation!”

“My father is American; my mother is pure Hawaiian. It is my mother’s land I love. The American nation has been unjust. How could we ever love America?”

“Let them see their injustice and restore the monarchy!” cried an old, old woman, whose dark face framed in its white hair was working pathetically.

“If the great nations would be fair they would not take away our country. Never will I consent to annexation!”

“Tell America I don’t want annexation. I want my Queen,” said the gentle voice of a woman.

“That speaker is such a good woman,” murmured the interpreter. “A good Christian, honest, kind and charitable.”

“I’m against annexation—myself and all my family.”

“I speak for those behind me,” shouted a voice from far in the rear. “They cannot come in—they cannot speak. They tell me to say, ‘No annexation. Never.’”

I am Kauhi of Kalaoa. We call it Middle Hilo. Our club has 300 members. They have sent me here. We are all opposed to annexation—all—all!”

He was a young man. His open coat showed his loose dark shirt; his muscular body swayed with excitement. He wore boots that came above his knees. There was a large white handkerchief knotted about his brown throat, and his fine head, with its intelligent eyes, rose from his shoulders with a grace that would have been deerlike were it not for its splendid strength.

“I love my country and oppose annexation,” said a heavy-set, gray-haired man with a good, clear profile. “We look to America as our friend. Let her not be our enemy!”

“Hekipi, a delegate from Molokai to the league, writes: ‘I honestly assert that the great majority of Hawaiians on Molokai are opposed to annexation. They fear that if they become annexed to the United States they will lose their lands. The foreigners will reap all the benefit and the Hawaiians will be placed in a worse position than they are to-day.”

“I am a mail carrier. Come with me to my district.” A man who was sitting in the first row rose and stretched out an appealing hand. “Come to my district. I will show you 2000 Hawaiians against annexation.”

“I stand—we all stand to testify to our love of our country. No flag but the Hawaiian flag. Never the American!”

There was cheering at this, and the heavy, sober, brown faces were all aglow with excited interest.

I sat and watched and listened.

At Honolulu I had asked a prominent white man to give me some idea of the native Hawaiian’s character.

“They won’t resent anything,” he said, contemptuously. “They haven’t a grain of ambition. They can’t feel even envy. They care for nothing but easy and extremely simple living. They have no perseverance, no backbone. They’re unfit.”

Yet surely here was no evidence of apathy, of stupid forbearance, of characterless cringing.

These men and women rose quickly one after another, one interrupting the other at times, and then standing expectantly waiting his turn—too simple, too sincere, it seemed to me, to feel self-conscious or to study for a moment about the manner of his speech, so vital was the matter delivered.

They stood as all other Hawaiians stand—with straight shoulders splendidly thrown back and head proudly poised. Some held their roughened, patient hands clasped, some bent and looked toward me, as though I were a sort of magical human telephone and phonograph combined.

I might misunderstand a word or two of the interpreted message, but there was no mistaking those earnest, brown faces and beseeched dark eyes, which seemed to try to bridge the distance my ignorance of their language and their slight acquaintance with mine created between us.

I verily believe that even the most virulent of annexationists would have thought these Hawaiians human; almost worthy of consideration.

The people rose now and sang the majestic Hawaiian National Hymn. It was sung fervently, a full, deep chorus of hundreds of voices. The music is beautifully characteristic, with its strong, deep bass chords to which the women’s plaintive, uncultivated voices answer. Then there was a benediction, and the people passed out into the muddy street.

For more information visit Hawai‘i State Association of Parliamentarians

Excerpts from Na Lula Halawai.

“It is a sad reality of Hawaiian history that the language of the aboriginal people of the Hawaiian Kingdom was nearly lost in the 20th century as a result of efforts of U.S. forces in the Kingdom at the turn of the century to enforce an agenda of ‘one nation, one language’ in favor of the United States and the English language despite the lack of a bilateral treaty of cession between two sovereign states. A great debt of gratitude is owed to those who, nevertheless, labored to publish Hawaiian language literature and government documents throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries for future generations. This preservation effort has blossomed in recent decades as more and more cultural and educational organizations have been established to support and encourage what has become known since the 1970s as the ‘Hawaiian Renaissance,’ a concerted effort to reinvigorate studies in Hawaiian culture, art, history, language, and governance.” p. iii.

“Like Robert’s Rules, this book is also intended for non-legislative groups and organizations. And, Henry M. Robert adapted his rules manual of those in use by legislative assemblies at the time, this manual is based on and adapted from the Rules of Order once used in the early Hawaiian legislatures. The oldest known such pamphlets, published in both Hawaiian and English, date back to 1854 and were intended for use in the House of Nobles (Hale ‘Aha ‘olelo Ali‘i) and House of Representatives (Hale o ka Po‘e Koho ‘ia), both of which are included in the Appendix for reference. These early pamphlets are treasures of Hawaiian history and often bear amazing resemblance to Robert’s Rules, which is no surprise since it seems clear that the early Hawaiian legislative rules were themselves adapted from US models familiar to the early Western advisors to the Hawaiian monarchy. Subsequent legislatures in Hawai‘i revised their rules throughout the Kingdom period and as late at 1909 in the Territory. These and various early legislative journals and minutes have been drawn upon and adapted by the authors to establish acceptable terminology and grammar for current use.” p. 1.