1819 versus 1893

[geochem]

This piece of Hawaii's history is only one of a multitude of documented events in Hawaii's past that makes the current fascination with, and desire to restore, a monarchy by our Hawaiian activist community completely incomprehensible to me. A Monarch has subjects; the subjects obey the Monarch (or else); the Monarch does what s/he damned well pleases regardless of the desires of his/her subjects. The Monarch has sovereignty over his/her subjects; the subjects have no sovereignty over themselves or the Monarch. How is this "restoring" sovereignty to Hawaiians? Kalakaua only gave up some of his sovereign "rights/privileges" at the point of a gun - at which time he became only a figurehead sovereign (... apologies to TomK... much like the present British sovereign: they can give out knighthoods, but otherwise have no real authority over their British "subjects" - they get to play make-believe Kings and Queens, and pi$$ away lots of money while play-acting in their regal bubble, but serve little other real purpose). But in the early days of the Hawaiian Monarchy, the power of the Monarch and his court, was pretty absolute (if my understanding of the history is correct) - if you were makainana and your shadow fell on royalty, you were done for; you had no rights, in the face of the Monarch's power, to home, property, possessions, family, or resources. If the Monarch wanted to buy fancy baubles to imitate British royalty, then you had to go harvest (or else)- practically to extinction - sandalwood at the expense of your time tending to your subsistence crops... If you or your family starved, that was, apparently, of little concern to the Monarch.

There is a historical basis for the expression: "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". But I am sure that it will be different this time...