THE future sometimes is shaped by historians. It is that conviction that has driven Thurston Twigg-Smith, former Honolulu Advertiser owner, to write his already controversial, self-published book: "Hawaiian Sovereignty: Do the Facts Matter?" Controversial view
of the 1893 revolutionIt has been called a "must read" by federal District Judge Samuel P. King, whose grandfather stood along with Twigg-Smith's grandfather in overthrowing the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893.
It carries a warm introduction by Roderick McPhee, president emeritus of Punahou School, who observed: "History is being ignored or rewritten to serve the needs of those partisans of the sovereignty movement in Hawaii."
MidWeek labeled it "the politically incorrect book of the year."
Honolulu magazine asked: "Is his book history or histrionics?" Reviewer Bob Dye found it mostly the latter.
Mahealani Kamau'u, executive director of the Native Hawaiian Legal Corp., called it: "Four hundred pages of put-downs, snide insults, misinformation and a dishonest rendering of the facts.
Jon Van Dyke, University of Hawaii law professor and consultant to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, says the 37 whereas clauses in the Apology Resolution (for the 1893 overthrow) adopted by Congress in 1993 and signed by President Clinton are historically accurate.
Twigg-Smith says they are primarily based on a one-sided 1893 report to President Cleveland by James Blount and ignore a later U.S. Senate report with different findings following hearings with witnesses under oath.
On a "Price of Paradise" radio show with UH Law Professor Randall W. Roth, Twigg-Smith called it "a very decent summary" when Roth said the book contends:
The sovereignty movement is mostly based on revisionism.
Twigg-Smith minimizes the role of the United States in the overthrow. Sovereignty advocates maximize it. Twigg-Smith says there were only four Americans among the 13 key revolutionists. He says there were precedents for U.S. forces being present in Honolulu to protect Americans at a time when unrest was threatened.
He minimizes the legal significance of the federal apology. Sovereignty proponents maximize it. My memory is that apology proponents, at the time of consideration in 1993, represented the resolution as benign, carrying no cash obligations on the part of the U.S.
Twigg-Smith contends that, in a century where colonial powers were grabbing up Pacific island nations, the best possible refuge for Hawaii was with America. He suggests that even the former queen came to agree with this after annexation in 1898 and the enactment of an Organic Act in 1900 that broadened the franchise for native Hawaiians. It gave them a major voice in territorial government until World War II.
HIS major royal target is Kalakaua, who preceded his sister, Liliuokalani, on the throne. Kalakaua's reign was corrupt and left Liliuokalani with terrible problems that she mishandled and thus made the overthrow "necessary," Twigg-Smith contends. When a counterrevolution was launched in 1895, he said, it failed because of lukewarm support.
He even suggests the historical, religious and cultural significance of Kahoolawe Island is overdrawn.
His book is full of fighting words, which is why he wrote it. He can be faulted along with the sovereignty forces for bias, but he may set off debates that will bring more balance to sovereignty deliberations. In that sense, I join Judge King in calling it a "must read."
A.A. Smyser is the contributing editor
and former editor of the the Star-Bulletin
His column runs Tuesday and Thursday.