August 9, 1956- Women's March Protesting Apartheid in South Africa

1956 Women’s March. Photographer unknown. https://artscomments.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/lillian-ngoyi-one-of-the-women-who-gave-us-womens-day/

For centuries the landmass that would become the nation of South Africa was home to a variety of indigenous African peoples. In the 1600s Dutch and British traders began to establish port communities to supply their ships. Many opted to stay after leaving employment with their trading houses rather than return to their homelands. As the British Empire grew, it came to dominate the region in its pursuit for gold and other valuable minerals. They fought several wars with African tribes, as well as Dutch-descended communities known as Boers. In the 20th century Boers and their descendants, Afrikaners, gained some independence as The Union of South Africa, a dominion of the British Empire. In 1931 it became fully independent.

In 1948 the National Party gained a political majority and began enacting the formal apartheid regime. This program was built on a foundation of long standing racial segregation and labor exploitation from the colonial era, but was designed to institutionalize these policies in a modern nation-state and control the movements and labor of Black, Indian, and mixed-race citizens and deny them any political power or cultural legitimacy within South Africa.

Resistance to such policies dated back to the colonial era but historically faced stiff resistance from White elites. As apartheid became entrenched, political and labor organizing intensified among communities of color and their allies. Black men seeking work in White communities had long been required to carry passbooks. Those who were caught without them were routinely jailed and fined. In the 1950s the government sought to extend the pass system to Black women as well, sparking more protest.

On August 9, 1956, a group of 20,000 dissident women marched to the capitol building in Pretoria to demonstrate against the laws and deliver their petitions directly to Prime Minister Johannes Strijdom. Strijdom was conveniently absent. While the march was a powerful demonstration of resistance and further legitimized the role of women in various political networks, pass laws were indeed imposed on women. It would take many decades of struggle before apartheid was dismantled in the 1990s.

August 9 is still celebrated as National Women’s Day in South Africa.

Sources:

South African Women Commemorate Historic 1956 March- CGTN Africa

The 1956 Women's March Pretoria 9 August-South African History Online

How did Apartheid Change South Africa?- Encyclopedia Britannica

Pass Law- Encyclopedia Britannica

Lillian Masediba Ngoyi- South African History Online

Helen Joseph- South African History Online

Rahima Moosa- South African History Online

Sophia Theresa Williams de Bruyn- South African History Online

Colonizing Hawai'i/Part 8 The Territory and the Big Five

Admission Day Ceremony of the Territory of Hawaii held on June 14, 1900. Author Unknown. Bernice P. Bishop Museum. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hawaii_Territory_Admission_Day_Ceremonies.jpg

Most of the wealthiest sugar planters were not dedicated annexationists, primarily because they feared being joined with the United States would put an end to importing Asian contract laborers, a cost saving measure that was necessary to make the sugar industry as profitable as it was. Nor were most of them supportive of enfranchising Asian workers or Native Hawaiians. The most militant annexationists tended to be lawyers and businessmen with some investments in various sugar plantations. The wealthier planters could afford to sit on the fence between the Hawaiian monarchy and the Annexationists.

The largest corporations which came to be known as the Big Five, were C. Brewer, Castle & Cooke, Alexander and Baldwin, Theo. Davies & Co., and Hackfeld & Co., which later became American Factors. These companies owned multiple plantations, as well as the companies that supplied them, the refineries and factories that processed and sold the sugar for them, as well as the banks that made it all possible.

They imported indentured servants and other coerced laborers in large groups by contract, first with Chinese, then Japanese and Portuguese, and then Filipino workers. Multiple anti-Asian laws of both Hawaiian and American origin prevented many of these people from naturalizing and earning citizenship. It would take these groups many decades to effectively organize for political rights.

The Big Five wanted to be wealthy and powerful enough to control or strongly influence politics, without being responsible for politicking. They wanted to provide jobs that made the majority of workers dependent on them without the responsibility of adhering to the prevailing labor laws of the day in their home countries. They poured money into schools for non-Whites but also supported stipulations that banned Hawaiian language and culture, and required a particular American ideology that institutionalized White supremacy and classism. 

The grassroots political organizations created by Native Hawaiians, the Hui Kālai ‘āina, and the Hui Aloha ‘Āina both vigorously protested American annexation. They both delivered petitions signed by a majority of the Native population. Queen Lili’uokalani also submitted a formal protest to the annexation and appropriation of her crown lands. Regardless of their clearly communicated legitimate claims or their allies in the US and around the globe, the McKinley administration pushed annexation through in the midst of the Spanish/American War. The majority of Americans and Europeans saw the Native Hawaiians, and Polynesians generally, the same way they saw all the indigenous peoples of the Americas, as “vanishing races” whose populations were rapidly decreasing and could be disregarded politically and socially. This prevalent racist worldview, combined with the strategic benefit of the Hawaiian islands’ location in the Pacific for a fledgeling empire made American politicians confident in seizing control of the kingdom along with the Philippines and other islands.

Seal of the Territory of Hawaii. Translation:

“The Life of the Land is Perpetuated in Righteousness.”

Following the formal annexation, all the laws of the illegally established Republic of Hawaii were left in place until Congress could establish a territorial government for the islands. Dole and Thurston were hard at work advocating for terms that would retain the privileged position of wealthy Whites and keep Asian laborers and Native Hawaiians politically sidelined. Robert Wilcox played a pivotal role in lobbying Congress to remove property requirements from voting rights, the main tactic that had kept Native Hawaiians from voting in their own country. He also worked to establish an Independent Home Rule Party that would challenge White rule in the legislature. Hawaiian language newspapers were already numerous, but they rapidly increased in number as a tactic for preserving Hawaiian language, culture, history and bolstering an indigenous nationalism in resistance to American hegemony. As a territory, Hawaii elected a non-voting delegate to the US Congress to represent them. Robert Wilcox was among the first to be elected to this post. 

Sources:

Hawai’i Plantation Museum

Hawai’i’s Territorial Period in Context- University of Hawai’i

History of Labor in Hawai’i- University of Hawai’i

Kihei Soli Niheu plays Robert Kalanihiapo Wilcox, Jan. 1993- Hawaiian Voice

Katrina-Ann, R. “The Hawaiian Language Revitalization Movement.” In A Nation Rising: Hawaiian Movements for Life, Land, and Sovereignty, edited by Goodyear-Kaopua, Noelani, Ikaika Hussey, and Erin Kahunawaika’ala Wright, 78-85. Duke University Press, 2024. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=m9LZBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA26&dq=the+hawaiian+language+revitalization+movement+katrina-ann+r.&ots=yQzWC3dTuL&sig=XRtAkbjsBf99WICpEYyEP6eO8cw.

Silva, Noenoe K. “I Kū Mau Mau: How Kānaka Maoli Tried to Sustain National Identity within the United States Political System.” American Studies 45, no. 3 (2004): 9–31.

———. “Joseph Moku’ōhai Poepoe.” In The Power of the Steel-Tipped Pen: Reconstructing Native Hawaiian Intellectual History. 105-149. Duke University Press, 2017. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=L8LADgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT8&dq=Reconstructing+Native+Hawaiian+Intellectual+history:+joseph+mokuohai+poepoe&ots=1_dfQm4DtZ&sig=IVwOiUOJpgOMRcxTqDVOjMpN6WA.

Whitehead, John S. “Western Progressives, Old South Planters, or Colonial Oppressors: The Enigma of Hawaii’s ‘Big Five,’ 1898–1940.” Western Historical Quarterly 30, no. 3 (1999): 295–326.

Colonizing Hawai'i/Part 4- The Great Māhele

A view of 'Iolani Palace in Honolulu, Hawaii. 2021. Gage Skidmore. Cc-by-sa-2.0

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iolani_Palace_(51872681413).jpg

The official Māhele took place in 1848 but the term is also used as a catch-all for a process that spanned 1845-55. The Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Titles was created in 1845. It was made to facilitate and arbitrate land claims by private individuals, native and foreign, that would ensue from the coming land reforms. Between January and March of 1848 the Māhele proper occurred as the King reached agreements with 240 ali’i and konohiki (Hawaiian chiefs) concerning their lands, after which they were to submit their claims to the Board.

The Hawaiian royal family and other indigenous elites throughout the islands had more access to the resources necessary to secure their land claims. Ordinary Hawaiians often did not. Language barriers, as well as the cost of surveyors, added to the challenge of navigating the Māhele’s legal requirements. By the 1848 claim deadline, many commoners had not filed either out of frustration, or outright resistance to what they saw as an alien system.

Also in 1848,  the king divided his own lands into those owned by the Hawaiian government, and those that were his own personal property. The last 2 major steps in the process of the Mālehe occurred in 1850. First the Legislature passed an act to allow foreigners to acquire land in “fee simple.” Fee simple, meaning as private property in the Euro-American fashion. Finally, the Kuleana Act of 1850 gave Hawaiian commoners who had acquired title to their lands by submitting claims, to sell it, completing their transition to fee simple ownership. 

Photograph of William Little Lee and Charles Reed Bishop. Photographer unknown. 1846. Public Domain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_Little_Lee_and_Charles_Reed_Bishop_1846.jpg

2 Americans who went on to serve in the Hawaiian government during this period were William Little Lee and Charles Reed Bishop. Both hailing from New York State, the young professionals had set out for Oregon in 1846, but found opportunities in Hawai’i before reaching the west coast of North America. 

Lee, a lawyer, was soon appointed as judge in O’ahu and made a member of Kamehameha III’s privy council. In 1848 he was appointed as Chief Justice of the Hawaiian Supreme Court. Lee was instrumental in drafting some of the laws of the newly formed constitutional monarchy and served on the land commission that facilitated the Great Mahele. He also helped draft the 1852 constitution which gave the other branches of government increased oversight over the king’s powers. Towards the end of his life, Lee was working on passing reciprocity treaties with the US. He died of tuberculosis in 1857 before the negotiations could be completed.

Charles Reed Bishop found work as a lawyer, then as an agent for the US consul, and then as a customs agent for the Kingdom of Hawai’i. He courted a member of the royal family, Bernice Pauahi Pākī. They were married in 1850. Bishop continued to prosper, founding a bank, and serving on the privy council to several Hawaiian monarchs. He was appointed to the House of Nobles by Kamehameha IV. He and his wife founded the Kamehameha Schools, a school system that educated children of Hawaiian ancestry. 

Kamehameha IV, born Alexander ʻIolani Liholiho Keawenui (1834–1863) Hawaii State Archives. Approx. 1863. Public Domain. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kamehameha_IV_(PP-97-8-002).jpg

Kamehameha IV reigned from 1855-1863 following the death of his predecessor. He worked to balance American subjects’ influence over the kingdom, as they were the largest landowners besides the Hawiian elite, and in many cases far wealthier. His successor, Kamehameha V went even further, refusing to uphold the 1852 constitution. He called a convention to draft a new one in 1864. This constitution abolished the office of kuhina nui, restored some of the king’s autonomy, and converted the House of Nobles and House of Representatives into a single Legislative Assembly. 

King Kamehameha V. Charles Weed. 1865. Public Domain. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kamehameha_the_Fifth.jpg

Kamehameha V died without naming a successor. Choosing the new sovereign from eligible royal family members fell to a vote by the Legislative Assembly. King Lunalilo was elected in 1873, but fell ill with tuberculosis and died in January of 1874. 

Another election was held between David Kalakaua and the former queen and widow of Kamehameha IV, Emma Rooke. Kalakaua won the election amid much controversy, leading to the Honolulu Courthouse Riot. Rooke’s supporters targeted legislators that had supported Kalakaua, injuring many. British and American soldiers docked nearby were called in to restore order.

King Kalakaua was staunchly opposed to ceding any land to foreign nations. At the same time, he negotiated a reciprocity treaty with the US that enriched the owners of Hawai’i’s sugar plantations. Most of these were IS, many of whom advocated American annexation of the kingdom.

Sources:

Kamehameha IV

Kamehameha V

King Lunalilo

King Kalākaua

Banner, Stuart. “Preparing to Be Colonized: Land Tenure and Legal Strategy in Nineteenth-Century Hawaii.” Law & Society Review 39, no. 2 (2005): 273–314.

Kashay, Jennifer Fish. “Agents of Imperialism: Missionaries and Merchants in Early-Nineteenth-Century Hawaii.” The New England Quarterly 80, no. 2 (2007): 280–98.

Kessler, Lawrence H. “A Plantation upon a Hill; Or, Sugar without Rum: Hawai ‘i’s Missionaries and the Founding of the Sugarcane Plantation System.” Pacific Historical Review 84, no. 2 (2014): 129–62.