Jump to content

Talk:Aliʻi nui of Molokai

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Alii Aimoku of Molokai)

King, Queen, Consort, Dukes, other European titles can't be equated to Hawaiian titles

[edit]

I've said this before on other pages & others disputed what I had to say, but it seems that people are getting too fixated with these ridiculous European titles attaching them to the ancient aliis. I can understand if it is used with Kamehameha I and those after him since this is when we see these titles being addressed with these individuals. Especially since they were ruling monarchs but yet other aliis that had their part in government (as council, etc.) but never carried or used any of these titles. But to use it on other ancient chiefs who lived more than 5 generations before Kamehameha, such as Kamauaua, Keoloewaakamauaua or Nuakea, it doesn't really have the same meaning. Not to mention already the inconsistencies with using both King/Queen titles along with ali'i on the same page.

This page alone is equally confusing by identifying alii aimoku of Molokai, how the term alii aimoku was used on 4 "main" (I still don't understand what this is, not even the fake State of Hawaii uses that term nor has it since the Kingdom times) but it is applied to Molokai. And then there are references but the reference doesn't even state that these chiefs were alii aimoku, but rather an alii nui. And yet this page does list that they were alii nui. This is confusing for those trying to find out who were these chiefs, let alone confound them with different Hawaiian titles. How it went from alii nui (as stated for Kamauaua) to alii aimoku, yet alii nui is also listed is beyond me. Also, only Kamauaua is mentioned as being the alii nui, no other chief of Molokai was known to be that.

I initially began to remove the titles of "king" for these ancient chiefs since they weren't appropriate, especially since they never had any kingdom to rule. The aliis had various titles and had different ranks. You can see Kamakau's books, "Tales and Traditions of the People of Old" (p. 39) and "The People of Old" (p. 4) where he talks about these. In David Malo's book "Hawaiian Antiquities" (p. 53) he explains a bit more about the relationships of the chiefs and the people, and how some chiefs were appointed. And sometimes it's not that definite, especially for those of us that speak the language where we could use them interchangeably. These are also explained in detail by Fornander. Pukui's Hawaiian dictionary defined alii nui as a high chief, alii-ai-moku as a chief who rules a moku or district.

In Fornander's Ancient History of the Hawaiian People, pg. 64 he writes:

"alii-nui, meant powerful chief on that island for the time being and by inheritance, conquest, or marriage had obtained a larger territory than any other chief there. But after this period the word moi appears in legends and meles, indicating the chief who bore that title was, by some constitutional or perspective right, acknowledged as the suzerain lord of his island, the primes inter pares of the other chiefs of said island, to whom the latter owed a nominal, at least, if not always a real, allegiance and fealty. Nor were the territorial possessions and power of the acknowledged moi always the source of this dignity, for the legends relate several instances where the wealth in lands and retainers of a Moi were inferior to some of the other chiefs, who nevertheless owed him allegiance and followed his banner. Thus Keawemauhili the twice-tabued chief of Hilo, though he acknowledged Kalaniopuu of Hawaii as his suzerain, and assisted him in his wars with Maui, was far the more powerful in territorial wealth and resources, and he refused to acknowledged Kamehameha I as his Moi or sovereign for many years. "

He goes on to give another example of this which goes to show you that you can't really attached these titles such as alii aimoku to each alii and assume that their well known child, male or female was the next alii aimoku. Another example of that is shown in "Ka Nupepa Kuokoa'' dated May 2, 1868. In part it says, "...ua lilo o Boti i alii aimoku no ka mokupuni o Oahu." Kamakau's Ruling Chiefs of Hawai'i has the English version (pg. 273) as "Boki continued in the office of governor of the island of Oahu." This you can see how now the term governor, which there is a Hawaiian word for it, has been used in English to define alii aimoku. Boki's official title was Governor but in Hawaiian, the ali'i 'aimoku has pretty much that type of duty. If you speak the language, you'd understand the true meaning behind that word. Of course we could try to play with the definition of Mo'i as well, but as mentioned by Fornander, and where he explains (pg. 66) that word is new. He does mention that the alii-ai-moku, as they were called were independent chieftains of the various districts of that island. (pg. 67) And that they were ancient hereditary lordships. (p. 301) But the alii nui was a principal chief. (p. 54) J. F. G. Stokes said that moi is of recent origin and was first in print in 1832, according to Pukui's definition of moi.

In David Malo's book it lists that "mo-i, sovereign, was a word used in the days of the monarchy to designate the king or queen." (p. 162) In Kamakau's book Tales & Traditions of the People of Old says that "moi is perhaps the new term for hoalii chief."

I undertand this. I've read Fornander's book, and I know moi is a recent invention. I never thought it was as recent as 1832, though. I know that no chief effectively ruled an entire island without district chiefs that ruled under them and recognize them as sovereign. I always assumed Alii Aimoku means island chief, not district chief. The reason is originally when I started out of wikipedia the alii page looked like this [1].--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So these are proof of how even the Hawaiian terms can be confusing, but definitely putting King or Queen to these ancient chiefs is even more inaccurate. Also with that link cited as a source that shows a text, seems to have combined Catherine Summers as well as another source together in one. They were consistent with the misspelling of Molokai not once, not twice but actually 4 times and in one sentence not only did they spell the island name wrong but 2 other cities as well of which in Summers book it is spelled correctly. I come from a different background where I've done genealogy research for 2 decades so when it comes to sources, I have a habit of looking for more than one and always get to the original source rather than refer to a source that was based on someone else's work. As they say, "give credit where credit is due", it is almost like my motto except I just see it as going to the original source.

I decided to just comment here rather than try to fix and remove all the titles only to have the creator of the page put it back turning into ridiculous wiki wars. I'm just tired of people coming up to me with ignorant comments and worse, they quote this site as their source of information. Here I am trying to correct them but they believe this site to be like the bible in more than one occasion that I've had. I figured that if I can't correct these terms, I could at least explain it here and hopefully people will look at these discussions which we all know most users of wikipedia may not be aware of them.--Mamoahina (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I give up! I agree with you now. Western titles shouldn't be used for the Hawaiian aliis before the time of Kamehameha I. I don't plan to engage in any wars with you as long as your edits are good. Removal of western titles of pre-1700s aliis, I will support. From 1700s to 1795 to 1893, I would rather like a dual usage form where neccessary. If you don't feel up to the task. I would be happy to delete all the articles on the aliis prior to 1700s that I've created because honestly a lot of people hate them, notably User:Viriditas, because 1. they lack citations 2. they are all drawn from Fornandeer's book, so lack other sources 3. it mixes myth with history and 4. the Western titles. As for the alii aimoku (island chief/king) concept I drawn from Royal Ark Hawaii, a sometimes unreliable source, since I thought of Ancient Hawaii as divided into island kingdoms with concrete boundaries and establish kingships when in reality a lot of it is really muddle up and not clear. Also I would never, never, never want anybody to use my aritcles as the Bible for anything! Oh God, no! Can you imagine a stupid person writing a book on Hawaiian history using me as a source? The integrety of Hawwaiian history will be ruin all because of me. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now we've upgraded to "lord" on the gif. These haole terms will never cease to amaze me. I didn't refind this page but rather a Brazilian friend of mine asked me about these and I had no idea what he was referring to until he showed me this page and I told him that we didn't use terms like Lord back then, and that is not what these Hawaiian word translate to. Mamoahina (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Mamoahina is correct. The alii article could certainly use some further work as well, but in short, no, we should never be stating an alii, alii nui, or alii aimoku is comparable to western or European title except in the body of the article where is it might be comparing the differences as summarized by a reliable source. As I understand it, the alii families were the ruling chiefs and held all positions of power, religious authority (which includes the kahuna or priests) and was an inherited class or married into. The alii has been compared to the English or European nobility when discussing societal or cultural similarities to the western feudal system for the benefit of non Hawaians but should always be done when comparing both the similarities and the differences. The alii are broken into sub groups of different types of alii, some serving the ruling elite and some having more or less importance within the class due to full sibling partnerships. The Aliʻi ʻAimoku were high chiefs. Liloa was an Aliʻi ʻAimoku of Hawaii island even though he was not the supreme ruler of all of the island. Umi would unify the entire island I believe). Liloa ruled the largest districts I believe and had the support of most of the other Aliʻi ʻAimoku except for a few. Kanaina I is an alii nui, because of his inherited status from his parentage on both parent's side, but of a different class alii and therefore below that of Kalaniʻōpuʻu I believe. I think nui translates to "the great".--Mark Miller (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alii nui of Molokai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aliʻi_nui_of_Molokai&oldid=1198410097"