Jennifer Wada at 06:57, 3 April 2006

2006-04-03T06:57:04Z

Jennifer Wada at 10:23, 8 March 2006

2006-03-08T10:23:56Z

New page

times. After selecting the
choicest lands for his personal
use, the king distributed the
rest among his warrior chiefs,
who had assisted in his conquests.
These warrior chiefs, after
retaining certain parcels of
land for themselves, reallotted
the remaining lands to the
inferior chiefs, who in turn
reallotted portions of their lands
to their own followers. These
reallotments of lands continued
down the scale to the lowest
tenants, the common farmers who
actually tilled the soil.
All of these allotments of lands,
from the warrior chiefs down to
the commoners, were on a revocable
basis. What the superior gave, he
Was able to take away at pleasure.
Thus, there was no security of land
ownership under the ancient
Hawaiian land system. 22/
There is one significant difference
between the Hawaiian land system and
European feudal systems. The periodic
upheavals that resulted in control of
land passing to the conquering ali'i
affected the latter much more than the
commoners since: "the maka'ainana
were the fixed residents of the land;
the chiefs were the ones who moved
from place to place." 23/ The
maka'ainana could, if they were
displeased with the way the chief
treated them, move to the lands of
another chief. They were bound to
serve the chiefs, but not any
particular chief. Malo reports that
the "people made war against bad kings
in old times" and overthrew chiefs who
continually mistreated them. 24/
The Commission also received
consents disputing the statement that
the maka'ainana lived in an
"intolerable" condition. 25/ Here
again, authorities disagree. David
Maio, a Hawaiian writing in the 1830's,
was of the opinion that:
The condition of the common
people was that of subjection to
the chiefs, compelled to do
their heavy tasks, burdened and
oppressed, some even to death.
The life of the people was one
of patient endurance, of
yielding to the chiefs to purchase
their favor...It was the
maka'ainana also who did all the
work on the land; yet all they
produced from the soil belonged to
the chiefs. 26/
Liliuokalani (Hawaii's last
monarch), on the other hand, had a
very different view of the ancient
system:
...it has been at times
asserted by foreigners that the
abundance of the chief was
procured by the poverty of his
followers. To any person at all
familiar, either by experience
or from trustworthy tradition,
with the daily life of the
Hawaiian people fifty years ago,
nothing could be more incorrect
than such assumption. The chief
whose retainers were in poverty
or want would have felt, not
only their sufferings, but,
further, his own disgrace. As
was then customary with the
Hawaiian chiefs, my father was
surrounded by hundreds of his
own people, all of whom looked
to him, and never in vain, for
sustenance. He lived in a large
grass house surrounded by
smaller ones, which were the
homes of those the most closely
connected with his service.
There was food enough and to
spare for every one. And this
was equally true of all his
people, however distant from his
personal care. For the chief
always appointed some man of
ability as his agent or
{{p|149}}

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-times. After selecting the
+:times. After selecting the choicest lands for his personal use, the king distributed the rest among his warrior chiefs, who had assisted in his conquests. These warrior chiefs, after retaining certain parcels of land for themselves, reallotted the remaining lands to the inferior chiefs, who in turn reallotted portions of their lands to their own followers. These reallotments of lands continued down the scale to the lowest tenants, the common farmers who actually tilled the soil.
 choicest lands for his personal
-use, the king distributed the
+:All of these allotments of lands, from the warrior chiefs down to the commoners, were on a revocable basis. What the superior gave, he was able to take away at pleasure. Thus, there was no security of land ownership under the ancient Hawaiian land system. <u>22</u>/
 rest among his warrior chiefs,
-who had assisted in his conquests.
+There is one significant difference between the Hawaiian land system and European feudal systems. The periodic upheavals that resulted in control of land passing to the conquering <u>ali'i</u> affected the latter much more than the commoners since: "the <u>maka’ainana</u> were the fixed residents of the land; the chiefs were the ones who moved from place to place." <u>23</u>/ The <u>maka’ainana</u> could, if they were displeased with the way the chief treated them, move to the lands of another chief. They were bound to serve the chiefs, but not any particular chief. Malo reports that the "people made war against bad kings in old times" and overthrew chiefs who continually mistreated them. <u>24</u>/
 These warrior chiefs, after
-retaining certain parcels of
+The Commission also received consents disputing the statement that the <u>maka’ainana</u> lived in an "intolerable" condition. <u>25</u>/ Here again, authorities disagree. David Maio, a Hawaiian writing in the 1830's, was of the opinion that:
 land for themselves, reallotted
-the remaining lands to the
+:The condition of the common people was that of subjection to the chiefs, compelled to do their heavy tasks, burdened and oppressed, some even to death. The life of the people was one of patient endurance, of yielding to the chiefs to purchase their favor...It was the <u>maka’ainana</u> also who did all the work on the land; yet all they produced from the soil belonged to the chiefs. <u>26</u>/
 inferior chiefs, who in turn
-reallotted portions of their lands
+Liliuokalani (Hawaii's last monarch), on the other hand, had a very different view of the ancient system:
 to their own followers. These
-reallotments of lands continued
+:...it has been at times asserted by foreigners that the abundance of the chief was procured by the poverty of his followers. To any person at all familiar, either by experience or from trustworthy tradition, with the daily life of the Hawaiian people fifty years ago, nothing could be more incorrect than such assumption. The chief whose retainers were in poverty or want would have felt, not only their sufferings, but, further, his own disgrace. As was then customary with the Hawaiian chiefs, my father was surrounded by hundreds of his own people, all of whom looked to him, and never in vain, for sustenance. He lived in a large grass house surrounded by smaller ones, which were the homes of those the most closely connected with his service. There was food enough and to spare for every one. And this was equally true of all his people, however distant from his personal care. For the chief always appointed some man of ability as his agent or
 {{p|149}}

Template:Nhsc-v1-149 - Revision history

Jennifer Wada at 06:57, 3 April 2006

Jennifer Wada at 10:23, 8 March 2006