In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Reclaiming Kalākaua: Nineteenth-Century Perspectives on a Hawaiian Sovereign by Tiffany Lani Ing
  • Drew Gonrowski
Reclaiming Kalākaua: Nineteenth-Century Perspectives on a Hawaiian Sovereign, by Tiffany Lani Ing. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2019. isbn hardback: 9780824879983; isbn paper: 9780824881566, xi + 286 pages, notes, bibliography, index. Hardback, us$68.00; paper, us$28.00.

Reclaiming Kalākaua: Nineteenth-Century Perspectives on a Hawaiian Sovereign by Tiffany Lani Ing is a [End Page 270] response to twentieth-century English-language texts about Hawaiian King David La‘amea Kamanananakapu Māhinulani Nāla‘ia‘ehuokalani Lumialani Kalākaua (ruled 1874–1891) that rely on English-language sources written by supporters of the Bayonet Constitution and the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom. These texts, which have shaped understandings of who Kalākaua was and how he was viewed in the 1800s, do not accurately portray the mō‘ī (sovereign). Instead, Ing argues, “looking at all of the coverage and debate in the English-language newspapers and, above all, in the Hawaiian-language newspapers results in a far more nuanced and accurate understanding of how [Kalākaua’s] contemporaries understood and debated the role and nature of this mō‘ī” (197). Additionally, Ing argues that by looking at Hawaiian-language newspapers, it is clear that a majority of Kānaka Maoli (Native Hawaiians) remained loyal to Kalākaua throughout his reign.

The first chapter examines a body of nineteenth-century commentaries starkly dismissive of Kalākaua’s character and legacy, which Ing characterizes as constituting “a genealogy of incompetence and corruption” (46). Unfortunately, the most commonly read twentieth-century histories of Kalākaua have been based on these prior works, perpetuating the genealogy of misrepresentation. The chapter focuses on the white oligarchy’s portrayal of Kalākaua and how this small group damaged Kalākaua’s reputation by portraying the mō‘ī as uncivilized, unrefined, and unable to govern and lead the Hawaiian Kingdom. The characterization of Kalākaua that did the most damage, Ing argues, was the suggestion that Kalākaua was not popular among his subjects. It is this misrepresentation that Reclaiming Kalākaua most actively speaks against, showing through numerous Hawaiian- and English-language sources that Kalākaua was supported by his subjects.

Ing also explains that some of the nineteenth-century criticism of Kalākaua was made by Kānaka Maoli who opposed Kalākaua but still supported the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom and were concerned with the nation’s survival. Unfortunately, Ing does not spend much time on these perspectives. For example, although Kalākaua’s political rival Queen Emma and her statements regarding Kalākaua appear in the chapter, Ing does not discuss the queen’s supporters, the 1874 election between Queen Emma and Kalākaua, or reporting on the election until a later chapter. Contextualizing the political atmosphere of the time would have strengthened this section on Kalākaua’s detractors and added to the efforts of presenting Kalākaua in a more complete and nuanced manner.

The chapters that follow work to chip away at the misrepresentations of Kalākaua. In chapter 2, Ing focuses on nineteenth-century English-language accounts, published internationally and in the Hawaiian Kingdom, that describe Kalākaua favorably to show how histories of Kalākaua that rely on English-language sources have made a conscious effort to ignore these accounts in order to tell a negative version of Kalākaua’s history. Ing argues that negative depictions of Kalākaua are authored by those [End Page 271] motivated to discredit the mō‘ī and the Hawaiian Kingdom. Historians’ decision to ignore the more favorable accounts of Kalākaua has impacted Hawaiian historiography and how Kalākaua has been viewed over time.

For example, one of the events detailed in the second chapter is Kalākaua’s circumnavigation of the globe in 1881. Newspapers around the world reported on his stops and how he was received in each country. Ing argues that Kalākaua’s trip and the press it generated was “a form of resistance against the slanderous, trivializing, condescending, and judgmental accounts of his rule and his travels produced by Hawai‘i’s white oligarchy and by international...

pdf