Hawai'i summary

When you picture Hawaii, what do you see? Most of us imagine a paradise of volcanic sand beaches, dramatic jungle mountainscapes, and gently swaying palm trees. It’s scenes like these that have attracted visitors for the past eight hundred years, from the earliest Polynesian colonists to your Aunt Helen who went there on a cruise last winter. Your aunt might not understand that much about Hawaii’s history, but she’s not alone. Even historians knew very little about Hawaii’s past until recently. That’s because there was no written language in Hawaii before it was integrated into the world economy in the early nineteenth century.

But we can still learn much about its centuries of history. For example, we can interrogate the archaeological record and compare it with the mo'olelo – Hawaiian fables and legends passed down orally for hundreds of years. As a result, we can glean a new sense of how this unique Pacific community came to be what it is today. But we can only fully understand this history if we consider economics. Resources, trade, and the politics of compensation have played an outsized, unexpected role in this island paradise’s story.

In these blinks, you’ll learn

• how Polynesian voyagers sustained themselves on long sea journeys;
• about the complex social order of premodern Hawaii
• how guns, germs, and sandalwood changed Hawaii’s history forever.

We don’t know if the Polynesians were the world’s best farmers, or if the land was just incredibly rich. What we do know is that Hawaii’s thirteenth-century taro farms produced huge agricultural surpluses; these surpluses were greater than what American farmers produced as late as the nineteenth century. But the good times couldn’t last; surpluses sparked some permanent changes in the Hawaiian social order. 

First, there was incredibly high population growth. Based on the estimated settlement date and Hawaii’s modern population, scholars estimate that women gave birth to four children on average. The settlers kept this up through droughts, tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, and even during the wars that would become a regular occurence. These birth rates are hypothesized to be some of the highest ever.

The key message here is: Early population growth made Hawaii’s social order more complex. 

In the growing population, two groups emerged: the elites, known as the ali'i, and the agricultural workers, known as the maka'āinana. Initially, distinctions between the ali'i and the maka'āinana weren’t very large. Because there was more land than workers, the elites had to provide incentives for the workers to stay with them.

So as long as high-quality unused land was available, the society remained relatively equal. If they felt cheated by the elites, workers could just move to another fertile valley, or another island. But in the fifteenth century, Hawaii ran out of unused land. Now, crafty chiefs were able to exert more control over their subjects. A complex political order emerged.

New political systems included enforced tax collection and centralized power. These practices spread from island to island. During the fifteenth century, ali'i from the Hawai'i and Maui islands visited the ruler of O'ahu island – where Honolulu is today. They were awed by the wealth they saw. It’s likely that they sought to emulate his bureaucracy on their own islands. 

An important turning point was a crisis on O’ahu island. Another island invaded and, in the turmoil, a single chief – Haka – came to control the entire island of O’ahu. To consolidate his power, he assigned various units of land to ali’i and maka'āinana. 

Although private property didn’t exist, these land assignments were important. It was the first time a Hawaiian chief had redistributed land to strengthen his power; it wouldn’t be the last.

In 1778, Captain Cook’s white-sailed ships appeared off the coast of the island of Kaua'i. Life in Hawaii was poised to change forever. 

Three subsequent events were critical to the future of Hawaii. First, the opening of trade. Second, a big decline in the Native Hawaiian population. Finally, the further consolidation of power under King Kamehameha I. Ultimately, these events led to changes in social structures, and to the Māhele – a major redistribution of land that would establish private property in Hawaii for the first time. 

The first major change that resulted from Cook’s so-called “discovery” of Hawaii was a further consolidation of political authority. Kamehameha I, a ruling chief on the island of Hawai’i, worked with Europeans to acquire guns, cannons, and Western ships. In this way, he consolidated his rule over six of the eight major islands.

The key message here is: The first meeting between Europeans and Native Hawaiians quickly transformed Hawaii’s politics and society.

One major change was a resource boom. China needed lots of sandalwood oil, which was procured from trees that were plentiful on the islands. The sandalwood boom was quickly followed by a whaling boom. These new industries needed labor, so people began to move to cities. The previously agriculture-based labor market was disrupted.

Rural depopulation was accelerated by a massive population decline. As with many first meetings between people from the Eastern and Western Hemispheres, the Europeans brought germs. This led to catastrophic loss of life. Between 1778 and 1831, as many as 75 to 80 percent of the Native Hawaiian population died unnatural deaths. 

The population decline destabilized the traditional differentiation between the ali'i – the rural landlords – and the commoner maka'āinana class. In search of work and Western consumer products, Native Hawaiians began moving to the new towns of Honolulu, Lahaina, and Hilo. The ali'i were left with empty farms and little income. 

Hawaiians were becoming less tied to their land. At the same time, foreigners hungrily eyed what they saw as prime real estate. To address this new reality, King Kamehameha III approved the Māhele in 1848. 

The Māhele was a massive reorganization of land rights. It distributed land between the monarchy, the ali'i, and the maka'āinana. This paved the way for the issues that would come to dominate twentieth-century political and economic life: the dispossession of Native Hawaiians and the dominance of Big Sugar.

With the establishment of the Māhele, the king, the ali'i, and the maka'āinana could now own their land, in the European sense. All that the ali'i and the maka'āinana had to do was register an official claim in exchange for a title. But most of the lower-class maka'āinana didn’t do this – partly because there was little communication but also because the concept of property was still a totally foreign idea. Ultimately, much of the land allocated to the maka'āinana went unclaimed. So it was sold by the government.

The ali'i, on the other hand, not only claimed their land but promptly used it to gain access to a profitable new global market: sugar. And the growing sugar trade would eventually lead to America’s annexation of Hawaii. 

The key message here is: The Māhele laid the groundwork for the eventual dominance of Big Sugar.

Many ali'i leased or sold their lands to enterprising Americans and Europeans who recognized the sugar-growing potential of Hawaii’s rich soil. These early sugar plantations were most often partnerships between foreign investors and ali'i owners, licensed by the state. 

Increased foreign investment in sugarcane could threaten Hawaii’s sovereignty. Still, there was a low chance that the new plantations would become so economically dominant that they could impose political pressure –  for now.

Meanwhile, Hawaii and the United States were growing economically closer. Trade had rapidly increased between the two countries; by 1850, more than half of Hawaii’s exports went to the United States.

In 1876, the US Congress ratified a free trade treaty. This was supposedly to smoothen trade for both Hawaiian sugar planters and their American clients. But analysis shows that the United States was actually losing money on the deal. It seems that the treaty was more about the United States keeping Hawaii under its thumb rather than making trade cheaper. In fact, back in 1842, President Tyler had declared Hawaii part of the official United States sphere of influence. Now, whispers of annexation were growing louder. 

This new treaty triggered massive growth in the 1880s for the sugar companies known as the “Big Five.” Hawaiian sugar exports to the United States rose from 21 million pounds in 1876 to over 220 million pounds in 1890. The sugar plantations also brought over thousands of Chinese and Japanese workers on indentured contracts. Plantation employment rose from just under 4,000 in 1872 to over 20,000 in 1892.

The ali'i and the king had bet that sugar wouldn’t become powerful enough to influence Hawaiian politics. They were wrong.

As the sugar industry grew, the Hawaiian king’s bargaining position weakened. So, when it was time to renegotiate the free trade treaty in 1883, the US government tried to get more favorable terms. It worked. When the treaty was ratified again, King Kalākaua had granted the US government a new concession: an American military port in Pearl Harbor. 

At the same time, sugar barons were becoming increasingly unhappy with the Hawaiian government. They wanted higher spending on infrastructure to support sugar production. The king’s position seemed more and more unstable. 

The situation came to a head in 1887. Government opponents, including a small force of white people, held King Kalākaua at gunpoint. They forced him to accept a new cabinet and sign a new constitution, severely reducing the king’s powers. The new constitution came to be known as the Bayonet Constitution. It delivered a blow to the monarchy that ultimately proved fatal. 

The key message here is: The US government and sugar barons worked hand in glove to overthrow the Hawaiian monarchy.

To further destabilize the Hawaiian monarchy, the United States passed another tariff treaty in 1890. Suddenly, the privileges that Hawaiian sugar companies had enjoyed were gone.

As a result, Hawaii plunged into an economic depression. Sugar prices fell 38 percent in a single day. Now, Hawaii’s sugar planters had a new goal: to incorporate Hawaii into the United States. That way, they’d have cheaper access to US markets.

In 1893, with the assistance of the US emissary to Hawaii, a group of prominent white residents overthrew Queen Lili’uokalani. Troops from the USS Boston landed to “protect American lives and property.” Against her own wishes, Lili’uokalani yielded the throne. 

In 1900, Hawaii officially became a colony of the United States. The decision was made by the US Congress, with no input from the Hawaiian population. As part of the deal, the US government expropriated all of Queen Lili’uokalani’s lands – around 24 percent of Hawaii’s total territory. She received no compensation.

Obviously, the big winner in colonization was the US government. It moved quickly to establish a network of military bases to project its power throughout the Pacific. The sugar plantations saw huge benefits, too – their political influence deepened, and their property rights became more secure.

On the other hand, Native Hawaiians came up short. As the monarchy lost its land and power was transferred to Washington, the Hawaiians were left with fewer resources of their own.

In 1900, the US Congress passed the Hawaiian Organic Act. This established a territorial government and gave US citizenship to Hawaii’s residents – including Native Hawaiians, most white people, and the children of Asians born in Hawaii. They were now free to form political and social organizations, publish newspapers, and establish schools. People dissatisfied with the prevailing order finally had a way to lobby for change. 

What’s more, the Act established a two-house legislature elected by males over the age of 21 who could read Hawaiian or English. 

The key message here is: Even as Hawaiians gained political rights, the Big Five continued to dominate the islands.

Hawaii’s government was not sovereign; Congress could amend the Organic Act at any time. And there were no local governments within Hawaii, which made it easier for the US government to monitor local authorities.

Moreover, the sugar and pineapple plantations essentially acted as a form of local government. They provided medical care, housing, transportation, and other services to their workers. But workers had no real power to change the political system.

Legislation during this period was generally in the interest of the Big Five. For one thing, rural districts were well-represented in the legislature, but few Hawaiian citizens lived there. Most rural residents were Asian plantation workers who were barred from citizenship by racist naturalization policies. So the main voters in rural districts were white plantation owners and ranchers. Their votes carried a lot of weight. Meanwhile, cities swelled with Hawaiian Natives who were US citizens, but those areas’ share in the legislature didn’t grow.

So white voters dominated Hawaii’s politics. They were rewarded for their votes through benefits provided to the Big Five corporations – where many white people just so happened to be employed as skilled workers, managers, and owners. 

A powerful elite emerged. The same interest groups, communities, and even families came to dominate the Big Five’s boards of directors. These groups controlled the sugar and pineapple sectors of the economy, in addition to dominating shipping, retail, and finance. 

But Hawaii’s political order would soon change, for good.

Statehood for Hawaii was a hot topic throughout most of the colonial era. But Congressional leaders, especially white senators from the Jim Crow-era South, were terrified of it. They feared the specter of “Mao-suited Chinese senators” in Washington, allegedly “communist” labor unions, and the impact Hawaiian legislators might have on the looming civil rights debate.

For decades, the Big Five were opposed to statehood because it wouldn’t impact their bottom line. Why bother with such a fuss if there wasn’t that much to gain?

But in 1934, Hawaii’s sugar planters watched helplessly as Congress restricted immigration for the Filipino laborers they relied on. Another blow came when Congress passed a tariff act that privileged mainland cane and beet sugar producers over their Hawaiian counterparts. It became clear that until Hawaii was represented in the US Congress, Hawaiian sugar producers would never be on sure footing in the American market.

The key message here is: When Hawaii became a state, the majority of its residents got greater access to the political system. 

Backers of statehood had to contend with Congressional reluctance. So they needed to affirmatively demonstrate that Hawaii’s people were ready to assume the responsibilities of governing. Leading politicians elected a constitutional convention to write a widely lauded state constitution, to be approved by Congress and the president. 

Plus, Hawaii had gained a powerful new ally: the national Republican party. At the time, Republicans dominated Hawaii, and so statehood would strengthen their foothold in Congress. Finally, in 1959, Hawaii became the 50th US state. 

In one stroke, Hawaii accounted for 2 percent of the Senate – with under 1 percent of the American population. Hawaiian Daniel Inouye, a Japanese-American hero of World War II, became the first Asian-American to be elected to US Congress. He went on to serve nine terms in the Senate, shaping legislation to reflect Hawaii’s interests and getting more access to federal spending programs. 

In many ways, statehood transformed Hawaii from a colonial society dominated by elites to a rich, vibrant democratic society. But this came at a cost: Native Hawaiians’ loss of sovereignty was never meaningfully addressed. Neither was the expropriation of private crown lands from Queen Lili’uokalani.

By the twentieth century, Native Hawaiians lagged behind all other ethnic groups in employment, education, and cultural life. The colonial era had been a disaster for them. Statehood didn’t fix that. It also didn’t address another problem: the vast majority of Native Hawaiians and working class Hawaiians couldn’t hope to afford owning land in their lifetimes. 

In the United States, the owner of a house almost always owns the land it stands on, too – except in Hawaii. 

Many huge estates in Hawaii shifted to leasehold practices rather than selling the land. That’s because sales would have triggered huge federal tax obligations based on decades of ownership. By 1967, 26 percent of residential land was leased. Three big landowners issued 68 percent of these leases. 

The key message is: After statehood, voters used their new power to distribute land more equitably.

Homeowners reasonably viewed widespread leasehold contracts as a remnant of the colonial system. These contracts were structured to distribute proceeds to corporations, landowners, and the government. 

Other attempts had been made to distribute land to Native Hawaiians. An old program, the Hawaiian Homes Commission, is widely seen as a failure – most of the land in question ended up remaining in government hands.

When all of Hawaii’s citizens became voters, they worked to pass the much more impactful Land Reform Act, or the LRA, in 1967. Through the LRA, large landowners would be compelled to sell land at a judicially mandated price to people who owned homes on that land. This would limit the economic power of the Big Five and members of the Republican coalition. The LRA would also provide economic benefits to lessees, granting them the option to buy land when they were ready. 

After lawsuits that went all the way to the US Supreme Court, over 23,000 homeowners purchased the land under their homes, starting in 1991. But many challenges still remain. 

Some argue that the true purpose of the LRA might not actually have been to control the market power of large landowners. Instead, it primarily served to strengthen the position of Hawaii’s residents in the democratic political order. 

For one thing, land reform didn’t actually reduce the price of land. But in its compensated redistribution of property, it did achieve a more egalitarian distribution. This improved the stability of the new political order – with more people owning property, they had an incentive to support laws and policies to support property rights. 

This was just one more way to sweep away the vestiges of the old colonial order.