Virginia Boucher

Cindy Rouzer

Soc1DE1

Las Positas College

26 May, 2006

Military 

 The old adage, “might makes right”, is a suitable starting point to discuss this topic with regard to Hawaii.  In its earliest times, the lands were captured and held by the strongest chief with the most fierce and loyal followers.  Interestingly, there were few casualties in these battles because they were mostly fought hand-to-hand and with crude weapons.  The purpose of the fighting was not to kill the enemy, but to show superiority.  Attacking in such a way as to point out the weakness and vulnerability of the enemy was a victory (Barnes, 14).  Some of the tactics were similar to the “capture the flag” games played in military exercises around the world.  Stealth and cunning permit breaching the security of the enemy to take something identifiable with which to taunt them. 

 This type of battle changed dramatically with Captain Cook’s arrival and the introduction of firearms and cannon.  Indeed, it was the cannon that initially aided Kamehameha in first bringing all the islands under one ruler.  Using these powerful weapons, he convinced the other chiefs (on all islands except Kauai) to submit to his rule.  To bring Kauai on board proved difficult because of the hazardous channel crossing and frequent storms.  The cannon on the canoe made traveling by water much more difficult.  Kamehameha was eventually successful, but through diplomacy with Kauai and not battle.  

The Hawaiian Islands were soon regarded as a strategic fueling stop for trading ships as well.  Before long, the U.S. and the Japanese began to covet the strategic location for military purposes.

As the U.S. economic and political influence on Hawaii grew stronger, there was an overthrow of the elected government of the islands and they were eventually called a “US Territory”.  The US military had several bases on the islands and even took one and made it (the entire island) bombing practice range for training. 

 It was during this period that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor at Honolulu, bringing the US fully into WWII.  Shortly afterwards, during, arguably, a most shameful period of our nation’s history, thousands of law-abiding and loyal Americans of Japanese ancestry were locked away in “camps” for fear of their treason. 

The declaration of martial law after the Pearl Harbor attack “gave the military governor a monopoly on legislative, judicial, and executive power and did not bind him by the laws of the Territory of Hawaii, the United States, or the Constitution.”  The term military governor was usually used in connection with the defeat of an enemy state, a situation that did not exist in Hawaii at all. (Clarke, 237).

From this brief look at military actions in Hawaii we can reflect on the perspective from each sociological theory.  From the Conflict perspective, the use of military force to control land and resources is apparent even from ancient times.  From a Functional perspective, the military provided a level of protection for those whom they chose to protect (the loyal followers in past times and the foreign interests in the time of WWII).  From the Interactionist perspective, the vision of the cannon was sufficient as a symbol to convince some chiefs that uniting under one ruler was a prudent choice and dominant presence of US Military around the island was symbolic of the new order of things during WWII.