Talk:History of Hawaii

Moving from article for the moment

This table is not complete enough for use at the moment. Perhaps there is something with more information that could help complete the information or take it's place.

Population statistics

Historical population

Year	Population	Notes
1778	300,000
1805	264,160
1831	130,313	Census
1850	82,000
1853	73,134	2,119 foreigners
1872	56,897
1876	53,900
1884	80,000	The native population continues to decline.
1890	40,000 native Hawaiians
1900	154,001	About 25% Hawaiian/part-Hawaiian; 40% Japanese; 16% Chinese; 12% Portuguese; and about 5% other Caucasian
1910	191,874	26,041 Hawaiians and 12,056 part-Hawaiians
1920	255,881	42.7% of the population is of Japanese descent.
1930	368,336
1940	420,770
1950	499,794
1960	632,772
1970	769,913
1980	964,691
1990	1,108,228
2000	1,211,537	239,655 native Hawaiians; Japanese: 21%; Filipino: 17.7%; Chinese: 8.3%; German: 5.8%
2010	1,360,301	10% Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders; Two or more races may include some of the remainder

References

--Mark Miller (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

History of Hawaii vs. Prehistory of "Hawaiian Archipelago"

Prehistory is not "History of Hawaii", all the Prehistory material needs its own article. Wolfpack903 (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem actually lies with the opening sentence: "The history of Hawaii begins with the arrival of Captain James Cook and the start of the Kingdom of Hawaii ....." It seems odd to assume from the outset of the article that everything prior to the late eighteenth century needs to be consigned to 'prehistory' or 'the ancients'. I can't think of any other cases where such a bald statement would make much sense. Would it help to incorporate some clarification, such as "The history of Hawaii as a unified entity...." or "The modern history of Hawaii...."? jxm (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Well on the one hand yes "Hawaii" is often assumed to be a singular political entity of islands which did not exist until the Kingdom of Hawaii and which came after Cook. I do not think Hawaii here is meant to mean the archipelago of Hawaii. Further there is a second distinction to make anyways which solves this ambiguity. "History" is defined as the time period of written records and prehistory is the time period where there are no written records.v In regards to renaming the article I would propose creating another article called "prehistory of archipelago of hawaii" linking it in the start and putting all the cultural information there as well as a link for disambiguation if people are confused.Wolfpack903 (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thnx fr yr comments. As it currently stands, the style of the opening sentence just bothers me a bit, as it's somewhat in contrast with other equivalent history entries, such as those for Tonga or Tahiti, which have some comments regarding early settlers, carbon-dated information, etc. I believe that the idea of a separate prehistory article makes sense, though I suppose we have to be clear about how it might overlap with Ancient Hawaii - which we already link in the lede. jxm (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

-Objecting to Miller replacing history of Hawaii with an extensive cultural descriptions of pre-western Hawaiian society (put that in Ancient Hawaii for god's sake) and an extensive copy of his house of kamehameha. Again "History" is defined as the time period of written records and prehistory is the time period where there are no written records. In Hawaii they did not a written language until missionaries created one in the 1820's and records were created in the subsequent decades which came after unification. Accordingly everything before Western contact is pre-history/ancient. Wolfpack903 (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

-Second Objection: calling the Bribery Scandal "biased" - I've heard a lot of people in Hawaii claim anyone not a native Hawaiian is "biased" - this ridiculous xenophobia like attitude and close-mindedness has got to stop. Further, the source is the Kingdom of Hawaiian records themselves anyways. Thirdly the major impetus for the drafting of the new Constitution is obviously relevant and not biased. What is biased is pretending that the Kingdom was a rich utopia which was suddenly and without reason overthrown. Some historical context is necessary; the bribery scandal, the then King settling with the Asian farmer's family and the King's Guard stepping down is relevant to the new constitution. What I left out was the racism that Hawaiians at the time started expressing in Newspapers and Complaints to the Kingdom as the number of Chinese and white men (from US and Portugal mostly) were greatly outnumbering them as there population dwindled over time from disease and numerous other reasons. With that level of complaints to the Government the whites must have been alarmed, and with the King acting lawlessly (Kingdom of Hawaii records indicate Committees were complaining King was acting in violation of the Constitution) that they may used the Opium bribery scandal as an excuse to force the King to rewrite the Constitution the way they wanted to help protect themselves as well as demand an end to cronyism (firing the prime minister was a central demand they made at the time). Wolfpack903 (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I stand by what was written. Content must be non biased.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Update

Copyedited and restructured this. Feedback encouraged. Comment: The history seems to end with statehood, save for a brief discussion of sovereignty, renaissance, etc. Love to see someone pick up on things such as the rise of tourism, the end of sugar and pineapple cultivation, GMOs, Hawaii's most famous export (BHO), etc. HNY! Lfstevens (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I took another run through this. Feedback encouraged (shouting into the void). Same comments. Lfstevens (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Why No Mention of Hawaii Independence Day?

According to the hitherto uncategorised Anglo-Franco Proclamation article, this would have been 28 November, beginning with 1843. But according to this article, the British were taking over Hawaii in the same year. Does this mean that the Brits changed their minds in December, or that they took over early in 1843 and then had second thoughts? Or something else?

And, by the way Rjensen, although I would never defend the way in which Newfoundland was added to Canada — or most other acts of government for that matter — the place hadn't been a self-ruling country for over 70 years as of 1949. The people there were vulnerable to forces emanating from various directions. SewerCat (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Newfoundland was an independent self governing dominion like Australia and Canada before 1933, when it voluntarily reverted to a colony ruled from London. Rjensen (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hawaiians celebrated Independence Day (Hawaii) in recognition of that document you are linking and Sovereignty Restoration Day (Hawaii) for the end of the Paulet Affair (1843). The occupation was not supported by the British government and was a rogue effort on the part of Paulet. One celebrates the international recognition and another celebrated the restoration of sovereignty following the occupation. Lots of things are not mentioned or are erroneously oversimplified here (such as the claim the Mahele was a response to the occupation when it occurred five years after) as a matter of fact.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, KAVEBEAR, for clarifying. To be honest though, I'm more concerned that this article might be misleading for other readers. The materials you mention should be linked in. I'm obviously not the one to do it. SewerCat (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Who elevated Hākau?

Section Liloa says:

Līloa had two sons; his firstborn Hākau from his wife Pinea, (his mother's sister), and his second son, ʻUmi a Līloa from his lesser ranking wife, Akahi a Kuleana. Upon his death, elevated Hākau as ruler and delegated religious authority to ʻUmi.

Is no subject in second sentence. Who elevated Hākau? I assume it wasn't the dead Līloa, so who was it? -- Thnidu (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

attack on pearl harbor and "Hawaiians"

Fast question. when it says Hawaiians on the pearl Harbor paragraph does it mean those from hawai'i or Kanaka maoli (Native hawaiians)? 808Poiboy (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

it refers to the one regiment, where all the soldiers were of Japanese descent. Rjensen (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

aah ok. that shouldn't say "Hawaiians" then. it should say Hawai'i born Japanese. Hawaiian is an ethnicity that's why. I'm Hawaiian and that part confused me. thanks. I don't want to try and edit that because I just started and I don't want to mess up anything that won't be good 808Poiboy (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Merge first paragraph and first sentence of next paragraph?

Propose merger of the first two sentences of this article to something like: " The history of Hawaii is the story of human settlements in the Hawaiian Islands beginning with their discovery and settlement by polynesian people between 940 and 1200 AD".

I suggest this for two reasons:

a) to logically separate the polynesian discovery and settlement from the next paragraph about european contact

b) this will fix an issue with the History section of the article Hawaiian Islands which currently transcludes paragraphs from Discovery and settlement of Hawaii and from this article thus its two first paragraphs repeat themselves a bit.

Comments? Jp2207 (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)