Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Impacts of Great Mahele on Hawaiian Society
Impacts of Great Mahele on Hawaiian Society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Impacts of Great Mahele on Hawaiian Society
The Great Mahele was a land division in 1848 which created a massive alteration towards Hawaiians’ society. The Mahele was enacted because King Kamehameha III, influenced by foreign advisors, wanted to prevent a brutal and hostile takeover from the foreigners. Another purpose of the Mahele was to grant Hawaiians an ample amount of land. The Mahele did not serve its full purpose. Violence between foreigners and Hawaiians was avoided, but the majority of the land was lost to foreigners (Cachola). The Mahele did not benefit the Hawaiians because only foreigners had sufficient money to purchase the land and because the land that was given to the Hawaiians had limited resources (Menton and Tamura 116). Foreigners occasionally bought land illegally
in auctions. A law stated that the land should be auctioned off to native Hawaiians first before it could be auctioned off to foreigners. However, Hawaiians were not used to the idea of claiming land as if it was their own, since they had believed that everything belonged to the gods. Conversely, foreigners had plenty of money and was more familiar with the system of buying and selling land, most of the land was sold to the foreigners (Kuloku). This had a considerable amount of impact towards the Hawaiians because the foreigners were acquiring a considerable amount of land, and was becoming exceedingly powerful. The Hawaiians were caught in a vicious cycle of not having an adequate amount of money to buy land, and becoming further impoverished as a result of not having enough money. Thus, the Mahele was not advantageous to Hawaiians (Potter, Kasdon, Rayson 100). Another reason the Mahele was not favorable to the Hawaiians was because the parts of land that the Hawaiians received lacked proper resources to sustain themselves. Hawaiians were starving from the hardly arable land and the restricted resources (Kuloku). For example, people did not have firewood, timber, and la’i, so they could not build houses. The children had to eat raw potatoes because of firewood was not available, and the mouths of the children was bruised from raw taro. Consequently, the Mahele was unprofitable to the Hawaiians because whatever little land they were presented with was not enough to support them (Hio). The Mahele was not a gainful experience to the Hawaiians because the foreigners were the only one with
Mabo had a strong belief for supporting his land and its freedom. The argument was, many generations of Meriam people had lived on the island prior to the Europeans arrival (Reynolds, 1999). They believed that they were the tradi...
Not only did the Indians and Europeans use the land differently but also defined ownership of the land differently. The Indian woman defined and claimed the land as theirs by the crops planted and the rest of the land could be free for improvement. The Europeans viewed that, ‘“To define property is thus to represent boundaries between people; equally, it is to articulate at least one set of conscious boundaries between ...
Foreign exploitation began, when Cook replaced the traditional island subsistence-sharing economy by the for-profit barter and afterward the money economy. Firearms, and sandalwood lumbering where just a few items that brought foreign economic and political control of the ruling ali’i, who were tricked by many greedy Western merchants. The Great Mahele of 1848 and the Kuleana Act of 1850 contained a major land redistribution act, which was forced onto the monarchy by Westerners(Blaisdell, p.44). Bringing fee simple ownership to Hawaiians, these land divisions actually alienated the land from them. The Mahele divided the lands between the chiefs, king and government. The Kuleana act supposedly guaranteed to the makaainana fee simple title to small plots of land, which would eventually separate the individual from the group. (Trask, p.10) Hawaiians depended on the land, they were not use to “private property”, which led to many problems, and the chiefs and the government were heavily indebt to the Western merchants.
A small archipelago off the northwest coast of Britsh Columbia is known as the “islands of the people.” This island is diverse in both land and sea environment. From the 1700’s when the first ship sailed off its coast and a captain logged about the existence, slow attentiveness was given to the island. Its abundance, in both natural resources physical environment, and its allure in the concealed Haida peoples, beckoned settlers to come to the island. Settlers would spark an era of prosperity and catastrophe for the native and environmental populations.
1.) How did the arrival of American missionaries in Hawaii affect the lives of Native Hawaiians?
The conflicts between the Powhatan Empire and the English settlers in Axtell’s article can be said that the blame for the conflicts lands on both parties laps. When the two first met, they began as friends, offering goods to each other. It did not last long until the English customs, like discovery gives anyone right to it, posed a problem for the Indians because they never claimed land, they just moved around with the flow of the world around them. With this came contempt from the Native Americans toward the English. The Native Americans outnumbered the English but their arrows were no match for the English firepower, so they hide until they could even out the weapon power. The Powhatan’s knew they needed to manage the English from expanding while trading with them in order to obtain goods to fight. As the conflict ros...
The first tensions began on the Klamath Reservation when the Modocs signed a treaty to quarter alongside their neighboring Klamath tribe in 1864. Issues here included lack of food, poverty, sickness and general unwelcoming attitudes. Kintpuash’s band of Modocs had to travel to different parts of the reservation to avoid hostile matters. Yet there was no place within the reservation borders that had the resources they ...
Stevens held firm beliefs about the future of Hawaii in the hands of the United States. From the start of his stay in Hawaii, Stevens made it clear whose side he was on in the political war. He would openly criticize Hawaii’s monarchy, and at times would refer to Queen Liliuokalani and her advisors as “incompetent”(2). Stevens may have not held anything against the Queen herself or any of her cabinet members, but rather degraded them simply to achieve his goals of the annexation of Hawaii, something that he considered “the only effective remedy for Hawaii’s troubles.” (2) Queen Liliuokalani naturally spoke out against the degradation of herself and her cabinet, and on behalf of her position of defending the Hawaiian Monarchy. “The U.S. Minister John Stevens was influenced by the annexationists. As a diplomat, his role was to foster a friendly, trusting relationship with the Hawaiian government. Instead, he often criticized the monarchy in public. I complained to the U.S. government about Stevens’ attitude and conduct but no action was taken.” (1)
During a series of wars known as the “French-Indian Wars”, many tribes pledged allegiance to either the French or the British in exchange for later protection and trade. Tribes such as the Wampanoag, team up with the British settlers in the Plymouth colony as they “formed a military pact that would simultaneously ensure European safety from harsh winters and hostile Indians, and provide the Wampanoag security from enemy tribes, already partnering up with other European settlers” (Rodgers). But even with these alliances, many tribes were still the pawns of their European partners. With war now dominating Indian life, and as a result “Indians became more dependent on European allies for goods and provisions” (First Peoples). Since they were at war, they were no longer in their villages manning the fields, they now relied more than ever on the help from Europeans.
Massasoit, the Chief of the Wampanoag Indians at the time, signed a treaty of peace with the English that promised not to give up their land to anybody without the knowledge and consent of the Plymouth government first. It wasn’t until 1630 when the situation reversed with the increasing number of settlers moving to the Massachusetts Bay Colony known as “The Great Migration”, that the Natives became angered. The new settlers, the Puritans, were in desperate need of land and would do anything to get it. They wiped the Pequoit Indians out in the Pequoit War of 1637, and other than those who chose to convert to the Puritan religion and way of life, the Pequoit had vanished. Many of the Indian tribes were in trouble with the threat of loss of land, as well as loss of lives.
Many farmers who had lived there were being evicted from their homes in order to make way for the construction of upper income housing on lands owned and leased by the Bishop Estate. The resistance and protest on that day spread around Hawai‘i and concern for the well being of Hawaiians increased, making more individuals interested in the future of Kanaka Maoli and land issues.... ... middle of paper ... ...
The annexation of Hawaii was an important event in the history of the world. It is still not easy for the Hawaiians to accept the fact that America had taken over a land 2500 miles away from the West Coast. In 1917 Hawaii was considered the 50th state supported by the islanders after a plebiscite. Queen Lydia Kamakaeha Liliuokalani was overthrown because of the support of the United States army as well as naval forces to a group of businessmen belonging to the sugar and pineapple industry. The Armed forces of the United States were ordered to provide this support on the directives of the minister of the United States to Hawaii. In reality they were missionaries who had been welcomed for several years by the Hawaiians who did not see the annexation in advance. Subsequently they became influential politicians and destabilized the monarchy. They indirectly wanted Hawaii to become a part of the U.S. so that they did not have to face the dilemma of paying the tax. Despite her plea “to undo the actions of its representatives” U.S. government did not allow her to access the throne again. One side of the story told by the businessmen was that the reason they overthrew the queen was because it was a corrupt and dissolute regime. They were more interested in installing the advance democratic principles. The Western power was keen on acquiring the island because of its rich coaling station and a promising naval base. The native population became an ethnic minority by 1891 due to western diseases, cholera, smallpox and leprosy, they were vulnerable to. America used the imperial force to attain Hawaii (Thurston 1897). Imperialism, as it is defined, is an extension of country’s ideals and values over another nation, and ...
Castanha, Anthony. (1996, August). “A History of the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement.” The Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement: Roles and Impacts on Non-Hawaiians, Chapter 3. <http://www.hookele.com/non-hawaiians/chapter3.html>[10/14/00]
“History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples ' environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves” (Jared Diamond). In the book Guns Germs and Steel he accounted a conversation with Yali, a New Guinean politician that had asked “Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own?”. Diamond tries to answer this by describing the difference in use of government throughout history by bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and states.
The early missionaries played pivotal roles in changing the Solomon Islands and more specifically my village of Kekehe. They were aiming to bring Christianity into the South Pacific and were successful in accomplishing that. These all fall into the topic that I have done for my HYF01 assessment which is the positive impacts that missionaries had on my home village in the western province of the Solomon Islands, Kekehe. This essay will be focusing on module 3 and will mainly be discussing the constructive changes that the missionaries brought. I will also be answering some compelling questions.