Throughout the last year and a half, like many of us, I’ve been casually following some progressive financial blogs waiting for an economic historian to look at this financial crisis and guide me towards a critical understanding of why we’re in the crisis that we are, and how we might come out of it. Mostly, within a month of the September 2008 collapse, most had grappled onto either comparing our crisis to the Depression and the failure of the banks to regulate, or to the failure of the government to uphold regulatory policies like the 1932 Glass/Steagall Act, separating investment from commercial banking.

Emphasizing either, made sense as long as we frame this crisis as a construct between the federal government and the large banks. However, as many constructed dialogues go, there are usually multiple perspectives that crack the rigidity of polarizing arguments, for example, when we ask whether foreclosure on credit defaults should be forgiven by banks or legislated, a possible answer is neither (or both)– yet a viable solution might be for people to choose– as Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) advised in an interview with Bill Moyers– to stay in their homes and leave the burden of proof for the banks to prove to the courts that they indeed own the mortgage.

Similarly, when arguments over whether responsibility lay with the feds or the banks dominated every nuance of the discussion, another more fundamental question appeared–how did the dollar become the international trading currency?

This currency question wouldn’t go away– in part, because I didn’t know how to answer it, but mostly because my frustration was a result of the internet sites that mostly obfuscated the history. Every attempt to define this question did so as a rallying cry for celebrating free-markets– explanations like: the US currency was strong and so in 1944 during Bretton Woods all the countries adopted the dollar as the trading currency; or countries were bankrupted because of the war which resulted in the dropping of the gold standard, or just as reasonably, on the other end of the -uh- political spectrum, the dollar’s position was a result of some occultish banking/Federal Reserve conspiracy that leads back to Madame Blavatsky or the Rothschilds. For such a fundamental question, how is it that so little is written about how the dollar became the international trading currency– rather, how is it that we take the strength of the dollar, or the fortitude of American enterprise so much for granted?

Although I’m sure there are many academics and economic/foreign policy historians that can adequately explain this process within the context of counterpart funds, or the U.S. transition from Depression-era foreign-owned debts to postwar territorial assets, I am not convinced that one can look at the historical context of how the dollar became the international trading currency and suggest that our present economic policy is still viable. Is it just desperation that defends our federal economic system without exploring a kind of radical paradigm shift that may be both more internationally inclusive and sustainable? Centralizing industries and debt-plagued states are literally bankrupting us to buy more time to solve outdated problems while we raise the ceiling of our national debt in the expectation that the old paradigm still works. It begs to question why our best economic minds are practicing necromancy rather than encouraging it to evolve organically within some other alternative and creative financial discourse.

Some personal background– considering that the collapse of the financial markets all occurred while Hawaii was preparing to commemorate it’s 50th anniversary of statehood, my attention was primarily focused on the discussion surrounding Hawaii’s routes of independence through the options of either de-occupation, decolonization or through the UN Declaration on the Rights Indigenous Peoples. This attention required immersion into Hawaii’s Kingdom, Republic and Territorial history; international labor; U.S. State Department and Congressional policy from 1898, when Hawaii was occupied as a base during the Spanish-American war; and 1946, when Hawaii was officially put on the U.N. list on Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGT). Granted, post-war U.S. economic policy might have had little to do with the 1959 Hawaii Statehood Act, but whether approaching statehood through international labor (which played a substantial role), the United Nations, WWII, or through economic commerce and trade, all these roads lead to Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation. Researching how the dollar became the international trading currency was a proverbial stones throw from Hawaii’s surreptitious removal from the UN list of NSGT because much of it is connected to the same sources and departments concerned with Postwar Planning and the results of that plan.

This is a not a difficult story, simply another approach towards discussing U.S. economic policy strategies and these are four the pillars upon which this series of articles rests, each of which is not without controversy, further discussion, and professional circumspect:

1. The postwar 1946 Employment Act establishes the objectives of Employment, Production and Purchasing Power as a new paradigm for the U.S. economy.
2. The 1948 Economic Cooperation Act, arguably an extension of the Lend/Lease Act and a precursor to the 1951 Mutual Security Act, is central to the establishment of the dollar as the international trading currency between “cooperating” nations, in part, through a process called counterpart funds.
3. The 1943 Committee on Post-War Foreign Economic Policy and the establishment of the 1944 Bretton Woods Agreement helps to establish the mechanism through which international economic cooperation takes place. When we look at the substantial deposits of foreign gold and assets invested in the U.S. during the Depression as part of an international effort to help with U.S. recovery, and then the subsequent financial collapse of Europe as a result of WWII, a new international financial trust is created through the 1943 United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) and the Bretton Woods Agreement the following year.
4. Chapter XI of the U.N. Charter, the Declaration regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories– specifically the UN resolutions that followed (UNGAR, 222, 742), marks the end of the colonialist system and establishes international rights for self-determination (UNGAR 1514). This includes the influence of the International Labor Organization (ILO) as one of the dominant Specialized Agencies in the United Nations– specifically the role the transport unions of the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) played in encouraging independence for territories, while the rise of the International Congress of Free-Trade Unions (ICFTU), was created in part, to maintain the colonialist system and ensure the objectives outlined in the 1951 Mutual Security Act .

1. The 1946 Employment Act

To start with, the Census Bureau falls under the U.S. Department of Commerce (DoC) and among it’s many statistical categories, it contains measurements of national wealth and income; population characteristics and migration; vital statistics, health and migration; labor, wages and working conditions; agriculture; land, forestry and fisheries; minerals and power; construction and housing; manufacturers; transportation; price indexes; balance of payments and foreign trade; banking and finance; government elections; and government finances including copyrights, patents and trademarks. Every year the Department of Commerce publishes its Statistical Abstract of the United States and in 1949, they compiled and published their Historical Statistics of the United States 1789 -1945.

Why this should be of interest is that these statistics offer us the variables for determining the criteria for all kinds of national averages, and most relevant to this article, the data used to account for our GNP. In 1942, unemployment figures were transferred from the Works Progress Administration (WPA 1932-43) which fell under the Department of the Interior to the DoC’s Bureau of the Census. So beginning in 1942, it was the first time you were able to see employment figures and unemployment figures consistently applied in labor force surveys. Why this is significant is that in 1945, Henry A. Wallace, a progressive Democrat from Iowa and a supporter of the New Deal, assigned unemployment statistics to real GNP and Price Level, and argued that the controversial Keynesian equation for determining the health of a national economy was accurately diagnosed.

In part, this accounting for unemployment in GNP was as controversial then as it is today, considering how current unemployment figures are dubiously measured. Just after the war, criteria for measuring the economic health of a nation became a national security issue and factored into the conflict of the early Cold War years when economic “co-operation” became a code word for anti-communism (ECCW p.3). The “Full Employment” Bill as it was originally introduced in 1945 was greatly influenced by Keynesian analysis which asserted that if people stopped consuming and stopped investing, “national income (the formula being the sum of consumption and investment) would fall; and that the only way to increase national income is by increasing either consumption expenditures or investment expenditures or both, and finally, that there are governmental means of doing this in case private enterprise by itself cannot or will not do it.” (CML p.17). Full Employment then would assure that the government would be responsible for employing all who are willing to or capable of working. After bitter debate (much like our current health care debate) full-employment was whittled down to the vague concept of maximum-employment. The difference being the volume of federal investment and expenditure. (Santoni p.12)

The differences between the 1945 Bill and the 1946 Act were not only in the degree to which employment would be government sponsored, it also inserted two other decrees: production and purchasing power.

The reason why this is important is that this contributes to what was then, a new economic policy paradigm.

Before the Depression, our economic policy was the laissez-faire, free-market paradigm that would allow the markets to be free from government interference, and generally, did not consider labor to be a top priority in the profit margin. Also of significance, corporations and individuals were investing heavily in the securities and properties of foreign countries just as foreign investors were purchasing U.S. stocks and bonds. However, before the Depression the outflow was far greater and the estimated creditor position of the U.S. was increased from 3.6B just after WWI to nearly 9B by the end of 1930 (CAOAFC p.14)

During the Depression, unemployment grew as did inflation, which resulted in less consumer spending, particularly as the hoarding of gold and currency plagued the monetary system. (EACEA p.49) In an attempt to remedy this national disaster and infuse more currency in the market, the dollar was removed from the international Gold Standard in 1933. Whether this action allowed for the success of the WPA, is debatable, but by 1934, government work programs slowly began to put people back to work. Foreign funds may also have contributed to help remedy the crash and help pay for the WPA. From the time of the crash when there was an outflow of credit until 1939– the start of the war– there was a massive inflow of foreign credit, of nearly 17.5B in U.S. debt. Peculiarly, this resulted in a sizable increase of pre-WWII foreign gold stock in the United States. (CAOAFC p.14)

In 1935, as tensions began to rise in Europe, the U.S. Congress signed its first Neutrality Act, which embraced a Cash and Carry provision allowing for U.S. arms manufacturers to sell indiscriminately, to both sides of the war. By 1939, when Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland, this created an employment boon for labor and large profits for U.S. arms manufacturers. With much of Europe building their armed forces, the United States was in a good position to provide arms to Europe and the creditor-debtor cycle that began after WWI had more or less resolved and balanced. (CAOAFC p.15)

In 1941, the Lend-Lease Act ended the Neutrality Acts and prohibited U.S. companies from doing business with the Axis powers. Although some U.S owned businesses were quietly upset by the limitations placed upon their markets and secretly continued trade though latin american routes, most dealings with the Axis stopped. Besides currencies, the Lend-Lease Act allowed for the United States to acquire assets and resources like military bases in colonies belonging to foreign countries. Territories were essentially non-currency assets with commodities and resources to be bargained with. I might also mention here, one of the key figures responsible for overseeing the Lend-Lease program was Edward Stettinius, a steel executive, appointed by President Roosevelt as Under-Secretary of State. He also chaired some of the later post-war peace conferences that led to the ratification of the United Nations in San Francisco in 1946, and chaired these conferences before Trygvie Lie ’s election as United Nations first Secretary-General.

During the war years, both the U.S. economy and labor boomed and government and private organizations began to plan for the U.S. post war economy. (BCA p.15) Central to these meetings was an acute awareness of the role war-manufacturing played to the current economic success of the United States. The dominant question was how will the U.S. prevent another Depression when the war ends?

For Henry Wallace, the continuation of the WPA and full-employment was the answer. Congress shouted, “No!” In San Francisco, during the writing of the U.N. Charter (PFPP p.626), proposals for the consideration by an International Conference on Trade and Employments contained the objectives for “… full employment… by the major industrial and trading nations…” Senators Vandenberg and Connally who were the Congressional liaisons and reported back to Congress the results of these proceedings from Dumbarton Oaks to San Francisco took “violent exception to the use of the term ‘full employment’,” and both said that the Senate would reject ratification of the Charter if full-employment’ were inserted”(CML p.102). For the success of the U.N., this was not an option because many considered that the failure of the League of Nations was a result of the Senate not having ratified President Wilson’s push for U.S. participation and inclusion.

Senator Vandenberg plays a special role in this reading in that, not only was he instrumental in performing the difficult job of defending Hawaii’s and Alaska’s listing by the United States to the UN list as a Non-Self-Governing Territory to Congress, but in response to the passage of the 1951 Mutual Securities Act, he declared it, “a turning point in history for 100 years to come.” (BCA. 117, LMP 10), a prediction one might see as being 25 years off the mark.

Full-Employment was off the table, and in 1946 when the Employment Act was signed, we entered into our new economic paradigm of Employment, Production, and Purchasing Power to “foster and promote free competitive enterprise.” In addition, the Employment Act called for the President to transmit to Congress an annual Economic Report, establish a Council of Economic Advisors and a Joint Economic Committee to help produce the Economic Report. In each report, the president highlights the years policies as well as plans for the upcoming year. It also contains relevant statistics from the Department of Labor, the Department of Commerce, the Treasury Department, the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and of course, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Just the other day on NPR, Meg Whitman (R), running for Governor of California said that she would put the economy in front of the environment, hoping to tackle the unemployment woes first by allowing industries to postpone curtailing emissions. She discussed the creation of new jobs in traditional economic sectors and at one point, I began to wonder whether any candidate would present economic language that might inspire us to embrace the possibilities of truly a new paradigm.

For example, might we not consider that the Copenhagen protocol signals new objectives and be incorporated into the language and system the way that unemployment was figured into GNP in 1945; hence, the Employment Act of 1946?.

If there is a shift, I can only guess at what it might look like. As we shall see when we explore the following three pillars, I would advocate that it may be worth re-exmaining the opportunism that occurred immediately after the post-war years and that we might, for example, begin to explore reasserting national sovereign currencies and re-aligning this by incorporating organic systems of collective local or micro local assets, rather than only on centralized reserves. Although I will touch upon this in a later posting, I think it is worth examining the possibilities of a currency that may be more in line with the immediate and necessary environmental objectives outlined in the Copenhagen Accord?

• ECCW The Economic Crisis and the Cold War, A conference held at the Jefferson School of Social Science; New Century Publishers, New York, 1949.
• CML Congress Makes a Law: the Story Behind the Employment Act of 1946, Bailey, Stephen Kemp; Columbia University Press, New York, 1950.
• “The Employment Act of 1946: Some History Notes” G.J. Santoni. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Nov. 1986.
• EACEA The Employment Act and the Council of Economic Advisors 1946-1976, Norton, Hugh S; University of South Carolina Press, South Carolina, 1977.
• CAOAFC The Census of American Owned Assets in Foreign Countries, United States Treasury Department, Washington D.C, 1947.
• BCA Business Comes of Age: The Story of the Committee for Economic Development and Its Impact upon the Economic Policies of the United States 1942-1960, Karl Schriftgiesser, Harper & Brothers, New York, 1960.
• PFPP Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation, United States Department of State, Washington D.C, 1949.
• LMP Labour under the Marshall Plan: The Politics of Productivity and the Marketing of Management Science, Anthony Carew, Wayne State University Press, Detroit, Michigan, 1987.

Sunday morning in Hawaii, and it’s raining.

Responding to J. Kehaulani’s request to post a summary remark on Facebook about the *book* I’m writing, I spent a good hour pulling together a summary draft of what will become a public presentation on the research that I’ve been working on, in part as a fulfillment of a grant requirement by Hawaii Council for the Humanities.

Since I’m unable to multi-link on facebook, I thought I’d repost here with the links of some of the docs that I’ve uploaded.

My post: … my research doesn’t suggest that the post-war international labor struggles predetermines Hawaii statehood. Rather, the labor struggle was a response to the trinity of post-war US economic doctrine, the 1946 Employment Act, the 1948 Economic Cooperation Act and the 1951 Mutual Security Act. Collectively, these were US policies enacted to assert US economic dominance internationally, which in essence does two things: subvert sovereign currencies which I won’t address here, and perpetuates the colonial system after the signing of the U.N. Charter, particularly the advancements afforded to non-self-governing territories through Chapter XI.

During this time, the Soviet-led international transport unions–WFTU (which the ILWU belonged to)- confronted these policies (ECA & MSA) as a means to maintain the rights afforded territories through the U.N. Charter. In response to international WFTU protests, the US State Dept, US Dept. of Labor (with support of the AFL), and the conservative British and Dutch transport unions started a new international trading union, the ICFTU, which then led to the many ensuing liberation struggles in the territories, many taking place–where else– but on the waterfront.

Regarding the ILWU, leadership advocated for the rights of territories but did not specifically push for Hawaiian independence. Generally, they supported the right of the rank-and-file to assert self-determination through either statehood, commonwealth or in Jack Hall’s term, “Kamehamehaism.” … See More

Since the ILWU supported the rights of territories struggling for independence and because of their association with the WFTU, they were labeled “communists.” And since the acts mentioned above justified a US-led, blatant attempt to prevent NSGT from being able to develop or sustain trade with the Soviets (thus the land-mine phrase, “co-operation”), the international transport unions became the front line of defense of protecting the rights of the international worker. I should mention as a side note, that economic co-operation meant that foreign currencies adopt the dollar as the international trading currency and that the planners in the State Dept. knew that the Soviet-led countries would never do that.

Hawaii, from this perspective, became a state as a result of the national security concerns over economic struggles between the two dominant economic systems. There are other perspectives as well– all or mostly related– and this ILWU narrative is but one of several.

The part of this story that I don’t think I touched on because it’s a bit of of an eyebrow raiser, is the relinquishment of the sovereign currency, meaning that “co-operating” countries would peg their currencies through a process called counterpart funds, into a reserve– a precursor to, or a reserve akin to the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights. Here’s a document of a treaty.

It’s easy to see why the Soviets would refuse, and how in an economic sense, the U.S. provoked the Cold War, and although it’s a bit of a leap, this narrative lays out conditions under which Hawaii may have been but a strategic pawn of this incredulous post-war policy.

Thanks for allowing me to summarize this work here–it’s a very general narrative to disciplines that are very complicated and detailed, and I hope to engage with colleagues who may be able to add to or tweak this story.

This is my response to Kuhio Vogeler’s recent posting “Two Questions that Lead to Action,” in which he lays out a frame into which we can begin to build a strategy to end occupation in Hawaii.

Although there are conflicting viewpoints as to which strategy may be more effective, we seem to be at a place where many strategies can move forward concurrently.  Although undoubtedly, these routes or strategies will eventually bottleneck into a sort of Darwinian system of natural selection where the most popular strategy will eventually prevail, the inverse– that many strategies, large and small– must also prevail.

Let us just hope that this system embraces an international system, a contemporary extension of what Queen Lili’uokalani proposed to advance, lest we become governed by some kind of popular ministry.

My response:

“According to Cline, without strategic purpose and national will, other factors, such as population, territory, economics and military might, lose their potency.”

This phrase suggests that what signifies “Will” are the determining factors like the registration of the electorate, cultural determinacy, and economics. I would add that they are the programs and initiatives created by both individuals and organizations that signify Will. As we look at the history of political activism and cultural determinacy for this generation, Kaho’olawe and Hokule’a, for example, substantially marks Hawai’i ’s cultural and spiritual growth– and that too conveys Will.

One might argue that despite what appears to be lack of unity, there is rather a healthy dissensus that is engaging many communities beyond only native Hawaiian activists. If debate is a marker of where we are as a society, Hawaii must certainly take the lead!

Throughout the last generation, a variety of people and organizations have been focusing on issues and routes of engagement that for all considerable purposes, further the larger agenda of collective togetherness and national identity.

One thing that strikes me however,– and part of this is inspired by Prof. Osorio’s recent announcement of his defense against the administration cutting funds for OHA and DHHL– and that is economic funding.

People and organizations rely on federal and state funding for their programs. How do we navigate around the money issue?

I do not know, but it seems that MANA and the Hawaiian Independent have a platform that addresses this economic issue in an organic and homegrown way– but I do not know if in its present condition it is self-sufficient in a way that is financially viable. It seems that for viability to be attained, everyone’s cooperation is necessary.

There is a larger point, and it is that we really have to consider the entire fiscal package: resources, equity, currency, trade, labor, etc.

If we consider approaches or models as to how we can establish sustainable economic independence so that organizations like NH Legal Corp, Alu Like, and other native Hawaiian programs can sustain itself, then it stands to reason that this national Will that you reference, will manifest itself towards an active and more involved, independent nation-building process.

With the many year-end reviews and perspectives on the closing of the decade that I feel inundated with, I’ve tried to play catch-up with the 21st-century and realize that it’s a little like chasing the tide; futile, and at the end of the day, unrewarding.

Tonight, as many of us prepare to celebrate the new year, let us remember to read our futures in the champagne bubbles and discuss the past year/decade without the maudlin sentiment that like gravity, is so difficult to escape.

For me, I’ll be looking at the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood and remark how 2009 officially drew to a close with very little ceremony or consideration for what has been a very effectual year.

In 2009, the big issues of self-determination, decolonization and de-occupation brought to the mainstream a refined definition of Hawai’i and statehood. In 1959, the United States, through surreptitious and deceitful means had finally absorbed the once independent nation-state of Hawai’i into the nation’s 50th state. Like a huckster’s shell game, the processes have become exposed and we see the sleight-of-hand.

Glancing at the supermarket tabloids, this has been an eventful decade, one defined by both 9/11 and the collapse of our financial institutions, which, neither inappropriately nor coincidentally are the imperial bookends monumentalizing the Bush administration.

As we move into 2010, let us make note that we have inherited this debris and as 2010 marks the 200th anniversary of the kingdom of Hawaii, let us be inspired to come together and reinvent, restore and realize the vision that the kingdom of Hawaii had for its people before it was cut short in 1893.

And as we are still wrestling with the two issues that this second decade has inherited: the Akaka Bill and the issue over the “ceded” lands, let us remind ourselves of the simple adage, that it is people that make history. Adding to that, it is active people working in cohesion that drive that change.

Also, we need to remind the world that 200 years ago Hawai’i was officially recognized as an independent kingdom that was brought under rule by Kamehameha I. In celebration of this, a makahiki– a march and festival– is being organized by Ho’okahi Lahui Hawai’i on January 16th and 17th at ‘Iolani Palace.

Ku’e in 2010

Video of the August 21st Statehood Commemoration protest outside the Hawaii Convention center featuring commentary by Lynette Cruz and Poka Laenui

More information of that historical event can be found here.

Hawaii’s transition from 19th-century sovereign nation to 20th-century U.S. state is comprehensively examined in “State of Aloha.” Expertly assembled over five years by helmer Anne Misawa, who’s spoken to everyone from senators and historians to social workers and students, this valuable history lesson offers thought-provoking opinions on how the legacy of statehood has shaped Hawaiian society. World preemed at Hawaii, the docu deserves to catch the eye of fest programmers and pubcasters.

Opening with a Hawaii not seen in tourist brochures, the docu shows a heated clash between supporters and opponents of statehood on the Admission Day public holiday in 2006. The hot topics are the legality of Hawaii’s annexation in 1898 and whether Hawaiians should have been offered the choice of independent nationhood in the 1959 referendum immediately preceding statehood. For those waving stars and stripes, Hawaii’s economy and security have never had it so good since it came into the fold. Naysayers claim Admission Day celebrates an unlawful process that began with the arrival of missionaries and foreign landowners more than two centuries ago.

Debate on the current state of affairs is skillfully woven into an enlightening historical overview. It’ll be news to many viewers that, following first European contact with British naval explorer Capt. James Cook in 1778, Hawaii functioned as a constitutional monarchy for most of the 19th century before clashes with foreign businessmen triggered annexation. Less surprising are statistics revealing that the number of full-blooded Hawaiians plummeted from around 800,000 pre-contact to fewer than 8,000 by 2008.

With outstanding archival material at their disposal, Misawa and editor Ruth Chon picture 20th-century Hawaii as an evolving multicultural society dominated politically and socially by “the Big Five” sugar corporations. Clips from cheesy old company promo reels are pointedly contrasted with facts about migrant laborers being paid different wages according to nationality, and images of homeless Native Hawaiians toughing it out in Blue Tarp City, a shantytown-like refuge in present-day Oahu.

Anything but a catalog of complaints, “Aloha” allocates significant time to honoring the spirit and achievements of all Hawaiians, particularly the mixed-race World War II servicemen whose distinguished record helped advance the drive to statehood. Some of the docu’s most informed comments come from one such veteran, Daniel Inouye, who has served in the U.S. Senate since becoming its first Japanese-American member in 1962.

Among nothing but high-quality interviewees, the standout is the late Ah Quon McElrath, a feisty former union organizer and social worker. McElrath’s razor-sharp memories of the 1949 dockworkers strike and rumors of Hawaii becoming a beachhead for communism are just part of her tremendously incisive analysis of the islands’ postwar social history.

Final seg, covering seminars and rallies held on the 50th anniversary of statehood (Aug. 21, 2009), gives the impression that while no one here is exactly talking ’bout a revolution, there is much to be discussed regarding Hawaii’s future.

Commissioned by U. of Hawaii and staffed by a mix of professionals and media students, the docu is not flashy but looks just fine and is produced to a high technical standard.

Camera (color/B&W, HD), Bennett Cerf; editor, Ruth Chon; music, Jon Magnussen; sound, John McFadden. Reviewed at Hawaii Film Festival (competing), Oct. 18, 2009. Running time: 81 MIN.

Tonight at the Hawaii Theater was the world premiere of the Barbarian Princess. I went expecting to be disappointed, but I often forget that I like most films, and hence, have no filter for quality since I weep at everything from Dirty Harry to La Strada to Legally Blonde. There is however, a genre that I haven’t particularly liked since Room with a View, and those are those Merchant/Ivory period pieces– which typically is where British writer/director/producer Marc Forby seems to drive the Barbarian Princess.

The fact that Marc Forby is British is not lost on me, as this film, which he defended at the Q & A as an “art piece”when an audience member challenged his malaligned adherence for maintaining the controversial title. His defense of the title, as well as his vision, caricatured the 19th century British anthropologists who viewed their work as helping to make the unknown world knowable and safe for colonization.

In cultural terms Forby defends his use of “Barbarian” in the title because it is, in his words, used “ironically.” That the civilized world looks at Princess Kaiulani as a princess of some barbaric place and reveals to the world that she has the virtues and grace of a princess is not enough to justify this title. As was defended by one of the actors in the discussion after the film, the title is suggested to be used the same way as “The Ugly Duckling” is used to describe the beautiful swan.

However, this is not an ugly duckling story. Marc Forby wrote a story about barbarians who had their lands stolen, and used eloquence and beauty (with the help of a revised Sanford Dole, inaccurately portrayed as the guilt-ridden annexationist) to attain suffrage for all men who could read which, as Lorrin Thurston opposed, would invariably allow the largely literate and overwhelming majority of male Kanakas to vote. The obvious omissions of history is that you get little sense of what the Hawaiian Kingdom was like before the overthrow, and this film perpetuates a myth that the overthrow was nothing but the unfortunate stepping stone towards American democracy.

It would have been more historically accurate and dramatically engaging to tell the truth– that the overthrow and the results of occupation crippled a government and its people who had a constitution and a bill of rights that was arguably one of the most socially progressive in the world at that time. Just as the film referenced that ‘Iolani Palace had electricity before the White House, Forby could have just as easily referred to many examples, like the constitutional protections for immigrants, or policies outlawing slavery years before the Emancipation Proclamation, among others.

The problem with framing this story within a historical context is that what it omits and what it includes does not tell a story that reveals the brilliance of the kingdom. Unfortunately, this film is just another missed opportunity in that it perpetuates the myth of the civilized barbarian.

Critically, for example, John Davis, an Oxford affiliated anthropologist writes that systems of market exchange– hence, currency–is “dominated by rationality. And as a calculus of utility, anthropologists assert that economic activity is part of culture and a product of social organization. The consequences are far reaching, both in the developed world and particularly in countries where the market is a less important element among all forms of exchange.”

The historical villain of the film, Lorrin Thurston, describes Kalakaua as “bankrupting our economy.” Not only is Kalakaua seen as perpetuating the myth that he squandered the money of his people on building ‘Iolani Palace, but Princess Kaiulani, too, typical of tropes in classical anthropology, is seen as an innocent and native girl trading and collecting shells in a purse as if it were money.

The development of Princess Kaiulani’s character can be read as a vehicle for perpetuating models of a barbaric economy. We are introduced to her as a young girl on the beach collecting shells and trading them with her friend. The next scene is of her exchanging a trope-loaded whale-bone crucifix by one of the twin servant boys as a symbol for friendship or love. The following scene is of her giving the same boy a coin-like medallion for him to wear, so she can tell him apart from his brother, furthering the exchange as recognition of ownership.

As the story progresses, the shells the princess collects are cherished momentos and are often treated as currency, tokens for the recognition of duty and friendship, imbued with all the economic weight of exchange within the framework of the film. Throughout the film there is a constant giving and taking, a proverbial variable exchange rate that determines the relative cost of her conflict, whereby the normal dramatic structures of conflict and resolve are predictable and lack any real currency.

Even the exchange of a kiss exaggerates this commodity market reading of the story. The man she falls in love with when she is in Scotland inherits business holdings in Hawaii from his father, and when he arrives to tend this business after Hawaii’s annexation to the U.S., he reminds her that her worth as a Princess is no more. Since her title as Princess holds no currency and she is portrayed as bankrupt, he invites her to follow him back to Scotland where his business interests thrive and they can marry and live happily ever after. Instead she dies of a broken heart a year later– or so says the narrator at the end of the movie.

The truth of the matter is, Marc Forby is correct in his defense of the title, however it should not have been called the Barbarian Princess, rather the Barbarian Economy.

Hawaii was well on its way to developing a thriving economy when it was stunted by the annexationists who saw an opportunity to create an oligarchy around sugar. As Sidney Mintz writes in “Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History,” sugar was a precursor to oil. The sugar industry, in its role of production and consumption, helped to establish a form of capitalism that has influenced the way that the oil industry performs in today’s market. If you wanted to draw some loose contemporary parallels and apply the lessons of history to today, the overthrow and occupation of Hawaii by the Republic, is not too different from the occupation of Iraq. Sugar then was oil now.

The overthrow stunted Hawaii’s economic development. The Kingdom of Hawaii had its own currency that was not, as currencies are today, pegged to one currency or another or held in some foreign reserve. It was a currency like every other sovereign nation, protected by its own resources and against its own equity reserve (which was not shell based), strengthened or weakened by its demand in an international market. As the Kingdom’s currency was fluctuating, as was nearly all the other currencies in the world at that time, the annexationists and the chroniclers of that history have consistently maintained that the monarchy was bankrupting the islands and that annexation had paved the way for Hawaii’s economic growth.

Queen Lili’uokalani in restoring her Constitution, saw other opportunities of trade that were not so heavily based on the American led sugar market, which included direct trade with Europe, China, Canada and Japan. Consistent with the history of the Hawaiian Kingdom, I believe if it had not been for occupation, Hawaii would have continued to evolve and further develop alongside the rest of the world, rather than being simply relegated as an outpost for the U.S.’s insatiable demand for sugar consumption.

Today as we look at what our options are for balancing economic sustainability with technology and U.S. legislation, opportunities for economic development remain stunted. Hawaii is still an economic barbarian– held in perpetuity with an imperialist economic policy that today, particularly in our current international economic crisis, is seen as dictatorial, unjust and outmoded.

If there was a moment in Hawaii’s history where we could have fulfilled our economic potential, it was plucked like a plum with occupation and if the Barbarian Princess has contributed anything to our understanding of our history, it is simply to remind us that we continue to remain economic barbarians.

Here’s the new press release for the upcoming Ike: Historical Transformations presentation coming up on Saturday, October 24th. You can go to the imipono.org website and download a pdf.

This event also officially launches ‘Imi Pono Projects, a new site with a somewhat related but new emphasis which will fold over from Statehood Hawaii.

Statehood Hawaii will continue with the research and its goals, and the blog will be accessible from both the Statehood Hawaii and ‘Imi Pono Projects website.

Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE OCTOBER 13, 2009

Contact: Arnie Saiki– Project Director, ‘Imi Pono Projects
Phone: (808) 218-4367
E-mail: arnie@imipono.org,

ʻIKE: HISTORICAL TRANSFORMATIONS:
READING HAWAI’I’S PAST TO PROBE ITS FUTURE

HONOLULU, HI— Kamakakuokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies and ʻImi Pono Projects, are sponsoring a public panel discussion with leading historians, academics and activists on the history of Hawaii’s political transformations.

When: Saturday, October 24th, 2009, 10am-5pm

• 1. 10am-12:00pm: Recovering our Political Past while Probing towards the Future.
• 2. 12:30pm-2:30pm: History of Hawaiian Political Activism: 1887 to the Present.
• 3. 3:00pm-5:00pm: International Routes: De-occupation, Decolonization, and the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Where: Kamakakuokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies
2645 Dole St. Honolulu, HI 96822

Info: Attendance is free. Light refreshments will be provided.

Ike: Historical Transformations is sponsored by the Kamakakuokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies and ‘Imi Pono Projects.

‘Imi Pono Projects is launching an “after-statehood” series, where we will probe issues of our Hawai’i national identity. As we begin to address our future from the perspective of economics, trade, tourism, labor, commerce, legislation, etc, this series attempts to lay a foundation on which we can discuss and further understand our options for an independent national identity.

ʻŌlelo will document and broadcast this event, and it will also be streamed on the Imipono.org website and archived with the Kamakakuokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies.

Participants include: (in alphabetical order) Kamana Beamer, Kekuni Blaisdell, Lynette Cruz, Lorenz Gonschor, Noelani Goodyear-Ka’Opua, Ikaika Hussey, Sydney Lehua Iaukea, J. Kehaulani Kauanui, Terri Kekoolani, Maivân Clech Lâm, Soli Niheu, Jon Osorio, Keanu Sai, and Kūhiō Vogeler.

1. Recovering our Political Past while Probing towards the Future. As Hawaii continues to experience a series of political transformations first launched by its contact with the West and continuing now through the introduction of the Akaka Bill in the U.S. Congress, we focus on historical moments that substantially helped shape those transformations. Through presentations of historical speeches and articles, we recover some of the decisions that produced the transformations, and consider how that applies to the present and our future.
Co-sponsored by Ka Lei Maile Ali’i Hawaiian Civic Clubs. 10:00 am.

2. History of Hawaiian Political Activism: 1887 to the Present. Presenters examine the various individuals and/or historical developments that were key to the several political transformations of Hawaii since Kamehameha I first established it as a united kingdom. Presenters will exploring some of the various political groups in the 19th century Hawaiian Kingdom, the Ku’e petitions, the inception of the sovereignty movement, land struggles, the 1993 Tribunal, as well as contemporary examples leading up to how current political activism might redefine the map of Hawai’i’s political future.
Co-sponsored by M.A.N.A. and Ka Pakaukau. 12:30 pm.

3. International Routes: De-occupation, Decolonization, and the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Keanu Sai, J. Kehaulani Kauanui, and Maivan Lam discuss the modern trajectory of the Hawaiian Islands within the context of, among other topics, Hague Regulations on the law of occupation, the U.N. Decolonization Protocols, and the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This panel seeks to assess the relative merits that are rooted in international relations and international law, and which offer far fuller redress for the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy than is contemplated in, for example, the U.S. Congress’ Akaka Bill.
Co-sponsored by Kanaka Maoli Tribunal Komike. 3:00 pm.

‘Ike: Historical Transformations is presented by Kamakakuokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies and ‘Imi Pono Projects, with assistance from Ka Lei Maile Ali’i Hawaiian Civic Club, Kanaka Maoli Tribunal Komike, Ka Pakaukau.

Continuing the race-based assault on native Hawaiian advancement and entitlements, an article by the Southern Poverty Law Center “Prejudice in Paradise,” has been fueling a discussion on anti-white racism in Hawaii.

One perspective that continues to be left out of this incendiary dialogue is the story of “the melting pot.” In the 1950s, during the national debate on Hawaii statehood, one of the myths that was being peddled about Hawaii, was that it was America’s trophy for multi-culturalism, the result of America’s democratic experiment. In the post-war era, Hawaii was used as an example of how diverse nationalities could get along, work together and have inter-racial families, and this was seen as evidence that universal peace and harmony in the world could be actualized. Understandably, this universality was a founding principle of American democracy, and if the United States was to lead the world towards peace, diversity and equality would have to be objectives. There were even plans to headquarter the United Nations in Hawaii, but in part, because Hawaii was so far removed from Europe, New York was selected.

The founding of the United States celebrates this national experiment of diversity. To embrace American democracy meant to abandon the fixed social, religious, national and class strata of one’s native country and create new opportunities. This sentiment was an idea practiced by those primarily of European ancestry. However, in the 18th and 19th century, if you were of Native American, African or Asian lineage, this principle did not apply. For these new immigrants, swapping the application of nationalism for race was the new dividing line through which segregation and identity became manifest.

The Statue of Liberty, dedicated in 1886, after the Civil War, symbolizes the sentiment of immigration with a sonnet by Emma Lazarus inscribed on a plaque on the second floor of the pedestal, which reads:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Two years earlier, in his Majesty’s Speech at the Opening of the Legislative Assembly, on April 26th, 1884, Kalakaua declares:

“…the enterprise of immigration on Portuguese and other peoples, as a measure for the re-population of My Kingdom, has largely engaged the attention of My Ministers during the late biennial period, and liberal supplies for furthering this object were voted by the late Assembly.

That measure is fraught with so much importance to the future welfare of the country, that it should again be fully considered and receive your very earnest deliberation.

The settlement in the country of Portuguese, and other immigrants who have fulfilled a term or service is most desirable, and My Ministers will submit to you measures to promote their residence as a permanent part of the population of My Kingdom.”

“…I am anxious in view of the large increase of a mixed people in My Kingdom, that the military and police administration of the country should be placed upon a more effective basis, and the Attorney General of My Kingdom will place before you plans and estimates to provide for this increased effectiveness of this most important branch of the public service…”

The Hawaiian Kingdom embraced the diversity that populated Hawaii, and I would argue that the “repopulation” of Hawaii that Kalakaua addresses, was seen as a necessary step to adjust to the nearly 80% loss of Kanaka Maoli due to infectious diseases at this time. The embracing of citizenship to the Kingdom was a primary objective, and the reference to race is part of a policy that was conscientiously eschewed since it was primarily associated with slavery, a practice that was harshly condemned by the Kingdom, as stated in Article 12 of the 1852 Declaration of Rights which states:

Slavery shall, under no circumstances whatsoever be tolerated in the Hawaiian Islands: whenever a slave shall enter Hawaiian territory he shall be free…”

At what point did race become such a stalwart issue in Hawaii?

Arguably, it was the coup by the pro-annexationists, the white oligarchy, and it was through the subsequent “annexation” that the institutionalizing of race was founded. It was only after Hawaii became a territory of the United States that cultural discrimination against Kanaka Maoli became firmly entrenched, and the blood quantum of the Hawaiian Homelands Act created an over-determined attention to race. After the overthrow, there also began exclusionary practices to immigrant groups, and the division of peoples for the benefit of cheap labor which added to the entrenchment of the race issue.

Against the backdrop of annexation, and contrary to the principles of the overthrown Hawaiian Kingdom, racism flourished. Now that Hawaii was annexed to the United States, Hawaii was held to a lower standard of race-relations. The Massie case is a prime example of this– that a white woman would be arrested for the murder of a Hawaiian man falsely accused of raping her daughter, then released after an hour– is tantamount to the kind of racism that defined Hawaii under laws of the Territory. Further, the labor and economic conditions practiced under the territory were discriminatory and did not privilege native Hawaiians. This discrimination created a new economic class system in Hawaii that reinforced the racial biases from the Territory into statehood. This has led to a further dislocation of Kanaka Maoli from their home as we see today, with the growing native Hawaiian population incarcerated in prisons outside of Hawaii.

How was it that Hawaii became the international model for a multi-cultural paradise?

During the 1950s, as the world was dividing between the capitalist and communist blocs, the United States was promoting the benefits of capitalism and democracy to many of the new countries admitted into the United Nations in hopes that these new countries might adopt and support U.S. initiatives. While touting the benefits of American democracy at the UN, newspaper headlines were depicting the race riots and discrimination occurring in the South, as well as in other parts of America. Naturally, this proved an embarrassment to the United States, and anti-racial discrimination policy had to become a national security issue to counter the negative and adverse effects that racism had on our foreign policy.

During the Civil Rights movements before and after Hawaii’s statehood, Hawaii was often seen as championing the cause for the United State’s position on international racial diversity. Magazines, music and films all participated, showing mixed marriages, hapa kids, multi-ethnic unions, etc. These images though, were little more than propaganda to show the world that America embraced international diversity. That Hawaii should achieve statehood in the midst of this controversy is not coincidence.

Somewhere along this campaign is where the myth of the melting pot matures. The construction of the myth of the melting-pot entirely ignores the history of the Hawaiian Kingdom and is appropriated as an American ideal born out of Thanksgiving and the Pilgrim landings, the American Revolution, and the Civil War. Again, the United States co-opts the Kingdom laws and asserts its own ideals and principles as its own, all the while perpetuating the same kind of oligarchic control over its peoples.

While it is imperative for the Southern Poverty Law Center to champion issues surrounding race and class, the problem with imposing a model of inverse institutional racism on Hawaii, particularly native Hawaiians, is that the institution of racism itself was born and bred from the same principle that is at the foundation of having corrupted Hawaiians in the first place.

Racism in any form is unjust and unjustifiable, the Hawaiian Kingdom understood this. Yet, how do you a fix a system that breeds hate while preaching justice?

At some point we will all have to realize that it is a corrupt system that perpetuates this dilemma.

***

Following the Statehood Countdown, I’ve added correspondence between Henry Cabot Lodge to President Eisenhower over a plan that will help the U.S. image, internationally, with this national dilemma on Civil Rights. You could almost fill in the blank with “Hawaii Statehood” since the last office that signed off on the Admission Bill in 1959, was also the Office of the Budget.

go to original

October 15, 1957

Dear Mr. President: In your recent letter you asked for suggestions to repair the damage done to our world position by the events at Little Rock. Having reflected, I make these suggestions:

1. That our diplomatic representatives make a sustained effort to extend hospitality to distinguished colored people. This should not be confined merely to US diplomats in colored countries or posts like mine here, where I entertain non-whites regularly. In “white” countries distinguished colored people who may be visiting should be given hospitality. I know from experience here how much it means.

2. That some favorable action be taken on a loan to India and, in conjunction therewith, on settling the Kashmir question. India is a key country with much of the non-white world.

3.An affirmative attitude by the US on the subject of multilateral economic aid under the UN would have a tremendously good effect in all of these non-white countries and would tend to counteract the harm of Little Rock.

You may remember that I submitted such a scheme to you—involving no extra cost to the US, to be conducted entirely in harmony with US foreign policy (although our control would not be apparent); getting us about twice as much for our money as we now get under the bilateral program; and which would get us credit for helping an altruistic UN program “with no selfish political strings attached”. Under a UN program the services of first-class experts who are willing to live in the native village can be obtained at salaries which no equally good US expert would expect.

Ever since I have been here US policy has been negative, This has hurt us.

I am delighted that Secretary Dulles has now approved an affirmative position—including essential features which I had proposed—for us to take at this General Assembly. It still has to be cleared by Treasury, Budget, and the White House staff. There really is no sound argument against it and overwhelming arguments in favor of it. It aims directly at all those countries which are most upset by what happened at Little Rock and is definitely a step in the right direction.

The prestige which the Soviet Union is getting because of its satellites intensifies the importance of effective non-communist technical and economic assistance coming in a way which does not look like the US-USSR power struggle.

I would like you to hear me on this subject when it comes to you for your decision—if there is any opposition to it,

With warm and respectful regard
Faithfully yours,
Cabot Lodge.