Sugar-Coated Fortress: Representations of the Us Military in Hawai'!
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SUGAR-COATED FORTRESS: REPRESENTATIONS OF THE U. S. MILITARY IN HAWAI'!. A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI'I IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN AMERICAN STUDIES DECEl\1BER 2004 By Brian Ireland Dissertation Committee: David Stannard, Chairperson Floyd Matson Robert Perkinson Kathy Ferguson Ira Rohter ABSTRACT Hawai'i is the most militarized state in the nation. There has always been opposition to the U.S. military presence in Hawai'i. However, critics ofthe military face a difficult task in getting their message across. Militarism has been so ingrained in Hawai'i that, to a large extent, the U.S. military presence has come to be seen as "natural," necessary, and almost totally beneficial. A result ofthis is that it has become both easy and comfortable to view current militarism in Hawai'i as natural, normal, ordinary, and expected. This dissertation shows how this seemingly normal state of affairs came to be. By examining various representations ofthe U.S. military in Hawai'i - in newspapers, movies, memorials, museums, and military writing - I expose how, in forms ofrepresentation, places ofremembrance, and the construction ofhow we speak and write about the military, militarism becomes the norm and, in turn, silences counter narratives. The dissertation examines four distinct time periods, 1778 to 1898 (from Captain Cook to the annexation ofHawai'i by the U.S.), 1898-1927 (the period in which the U.S. consolidated its hold on Hawai'i through cultural imperialism and military build-up), 1927-1969 (which saw the growth ofmass tourism, the Massie Case, the attack on Pearl Harbor, martial law and Statehood), and 1965-present (covering the post-Statehood years, the Vietnam War, increasing militarization ofHawai'i, the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement, and the Ehime Maru tragedy). Each section examines how the military is portrayed (and, in some cases, actively seeks to have itselfportrayed) through different mediums: section one deals with military writing, section two war memorials, section three, movies, and section four, newspapers. 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract iii Introduction 1 Chapter 1: War Stories: A Militarized History ofHawai'i .20 The U.S. Army Museum ofHawai'i (Fort DeRussy) 26 The History ofthe United States Navy at Pearl Harbor 46 And the Band Plays On 75 Conclusion 77 Chapter 2: The Waikiki War Memorial Park And Natatorium 83 Consolidating Empire ~ 86 A Citizens' Memorial 91 Debate over the design ofa Memorial 93 Colonialism by Design 102 100 Percent Americanism 108 The Legion and the Memorial 117 The Competition 122 Hobart's Folly 127 Why Not a Peace Memorial? 131 Bring Out the Dead 137 Public and Private Memory 163 Conclusion 182 Chapter 3: Hooray For Haolewood? 191 Stories of 'The Islands' 191 Engelhardt and America's 'War Story' 197 Pre-Pearl Harbor: emphasizing Hawai'i's "Otherness" 206 The Idol Dancer (1920) 217 White Shadows in the South Seas (1928) 222 Hawai'i as America: From Pearl Harbor to Brown versus Board of Education 227 Big Jim McLain (1952) 238 From Here To Eternity (1953) .246 Hawai'i as Racial Paradigm 253 Conclusion 263 Chapter 4: Press Coverage OfThe Military In Hawai'i 271 Mainstream and Underground Press Coverage ofThe Vietnam War 279 Media Coverage ofthe Tet Offensive .317 Conclusion ~ 324 Post script: the sinking ofthe Ehime Maru 327 Afterword 333 Notes: 339 Works Cited: 353 IV INTRODUCTION The U.S. military plays a large role in the State ofHawai'i. Despite the popular tourism-promoted image ofHawai'i as an idyllic paradise, the islands are, in fact, home to one ofthe largest military arsenals in the world. Hawai'i is a vital American strategic possession, and it today holds the dubious distinction ofbeing the most heavily militarized state in the nation. It owns or utilizes 25 percent ofthe land on O'ahu alone. The 78,346 military personnel and their dependants comprise almost seven percent ofthe population, and when added together with 112,000 veterans who live in Hawai'i, they have the potential to act as a powerful voting block and influential special interest group. 1 Contrary to the American national narrative, which holds that the United States became a colonial power almost by accident,2 this militarization ofHawai'i did not happen by chance. U.S. military involvement in Hawai'i has been evident from as early as 1826 when the USS Dolphin was sent to Honolulu with orders to investigate and recover debts owed by the ali'i to American merchants. However, the one single act by the U.S. military that remains most historically resonant for Native Hawaiians is the U.S. Marine backed overthrow ofthe Hawaiian Monarchy in 1893, which led to the annexation ofthe kingdom to the United States in 1898. As a consequence ofthat act, Hawai'i today is the home ofthe U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM), which has been described as "[P]ossibly the largest unified military operation in the world" (Albertini et al, 2). The military hardware the U.S. now has at its disposal in Hawai'i includes Polaris and Poseidon nuclear submarines, the Fifth and Seventh U.S. Fleets, large amounts ofpersonnel and equipment at Schofield Barracks, TripIer Army Medical Center, Hickham Air Force 1 Base, Wheeler Air Force Base, Kaneohe Bay Marine Corps Air Station, and various other military installations, tracking facilities, radar posts, training grounds, firing ranges, and research facilities. The military owns or controls vast swathes offertile land, including training grounds at Pohakuloa on the Big Island and Kawailoa on O'ahu totaling 161,000 acres (Albertini et aI, 7). The island ofKauai is the home ofthe U.S. military's Pacific Missile Test Range Station at Barking Sands, established in 1966. In 1960, soon after Hawai'i became the 50th State ofthe Union, National Geographic assured Americans that Hawaiians welcomed the U.S. military. The magazine stated, "The community, having gone through one Pearl Harbor, gains reassurance from the presence ofthese combat ready forces.,,3 However, there has always been opposition to the U.S. military presence in Hawai'i. Native Hawaiians, in particular, have fought with, and demonstrated against the military. Many Native Hawaiians see the U.S. armed forces as an "occupying army," like the Israeli Defense Forces in Palestine, or the British Army in Northern Ireland. For example, author and activist Haunani-Kay Trask compares the position ofNative Hawaiians to that of"other displaced, dislocated people, such as the Palestinians and the Irish ofNorthern Ireland" (Native Daughter, 18). Trask refers to the "American military invasion and occupation ofHawai'i" (31), thus identifying herselfwith Northern Ireland's Irish Republican movement, which sees the British military role in Northern Ireland as that ofan "occupying army." She states: Hawaiians are not engaged in identity politics, any more than the Irish of Northern Ireland or the Palestinians ofoccupied Palestine are engaged in identity politics. Both the Irish and the Palestinians are subjugated national groups committed to a war ofnational liberation. Hawaiians, although not in the stage of combat, are nevertheless engaged in a kind ofliberation struggle. ("Settlers of Color" 6) 2 Trask's analogy asks us to consider Hawai'i from a different perspective - that ofa land under foreign military occupation. She states, "Hawai'i is a militarized outpost ofempire, deploying troops and nuclear ships to the south and east to prevent any nation's independence from American domination" (jVative Daughter, 17). Americans, who have historically been generally sympathetic to Irish nationalism, either ignore or are unaware ofthe similarities between Northern Ireland and Hawai'i, and it is this double standard that Trask draws attention to with her comparison. Many non-Native Hawaiians take exception to the military presence due to economic, environmental, and cultural reasons. Ifthe military were gone, for example, it would free up a quarter ofthe island ofO'ahu for civilian use. Gone too would be the trappings ofmilitarism, such as helicopter over flights, military convoys on the roads, and war ships cruising offtourist beaches. Practical and logistical problems caused by the military, such as live fire exercises in the Makua Valley, or the pollution ofthe Pearl Harbor estuary, would no longer be an issue. Tragic accidents such as the submarine USS Greenville's destruction ofthe Ehime Maru would also be avoided. Supporters ofthe military presence argue that demilitarization would have a significant detrimental impact on Hawai'i's economy. The military does, after all, provide jobs for 15,000 civilians, spending $3,731 million in the year 2000 alone (Schmitt, Hawai'i Data Book, 158). However, as authors Jim Albertini, Nelson Foster, Wally Inglis, and Gil Roeder note, the military is essentially a massive Federal program. Ifthe money invested in what is euphemistically called "Defense" was, instead, spent onjob creation, many more civilian jobs would be created than those presently supported by military spending.4 3 Furthermore, most ofthe land on O'ahu that is currently controlled by the u.s. military was donated by the State ofHawai'i either free ofcharge or for a nominal amount. The state does not, therefore, profit from renting land to the military. Nor do military personnel contribute as much as one might think to the economy ofHawai'i. Much oftheir purchases take place at on-base "PX's" (which do not pay state taxes). In this respect, the military is actually competing with local business rather than supporting them. Furthermore, because 20% ofmilitary personnel live offbase, they add to the general housing shortage in the state and to overcrowding, particularly on O'ahu (Albertini et ai, 63-64). In 1960, National Geographic declared that the u.S. military presence aided the tourist industry, which competes with military spending as the State's main source ofincome.