The decolonial turn

171

development of an effective interpretive program⁵¹⁹. Therefore, since 1984 Russian Fort Elizabeth has been part of the official commemorative agenda and was given an importance as such a place of memory. The significance and history of the place was emphasized.

172

people usually come to the island for. On the level of local memory practices, the biggest emphasis is placed on the legacy of often mentioned here King Kaumuali’i. The main road connecting most of the places on the island is called Kaumuali’i Highway. His statue greets visitors to the Kauai Museum – one of the very few museums on the island, situated in the main town, Lihue. Kaumuali’i is also a central figure of the historical exhibition inside the museum. Among others, the collection features a replica of Mahiole, his helmet and portraits of king accompanied by various historical figures. There is a painting of Kaumuali’i sided by Japanese shogun Tokugawa⁵²⁴. The description reads Tokugawa &

Kaumuali’i. Two great warriors that had one thing in common. They wanted peace for their people!

The painting from Kauai Museum - photo by K. Dziekan

The virtues of courage and love for peace are often emphasized when describing King Kaumuali’i. The focus on local, indigenous heritage of Kaua’i is the result of much

524 A reference to Tokugawa Ieyasu (1543-1616), the founder and first shōgun of the Tokugawa Shogunate of Japan.

Considered one of the three "Great Unifiers" of Japan, hence the reference to Kaumuali’i.

173

broader decolonization processes and the notion to bring more focus on local traditions, history, language, and cultural heritage⁵²⁵. In 2012, an organization Friends of King Kaumualii / ʻAʻohe hana nui ke alu ʻia was founded.

Its mission is to honor the last and great King King Kaumuali’i of Kaua’i⁵²⁶. This is a non-profit organization, which carries out various activities: commemorative, cultural, educational, and others. They became an important memory actor in recent years on Kaua’i.

However, back in the late 20^th century the indigenous perspective did not play such a significant role in official narrative yet. The potential of Kauai historical heritage was seen with such places as the location of James Cook landing – his statue was dedicated in the proximity of this location already in 1928. Therefore, the potential of Russian Fort Elizabeth / Pāʻulaʻula o Hipo was mostly perceived with its Russian episode, although Hawaiian contribution was soon to be noticed. After the plans of 1984 were not fully implemented another attempt was taken in 1992. Again, Martha Yent of State Park prepared a survey in July 1992. However, there was a distinctive change in the description.

The section on historical significance reads: Russian Fort Elizabeth is located on a southeast bank of the Waimea River and just outside of the town Waimea on the west side of Kauai. The fort site is situated on a bluff above the river mouth and overlooks the shoreline, the Waimea River, and Wimea town. The fort was partially constructed and initially occupied by George Schaeffer and the Russian American Company in 1815. This construction was supported by Kauai King Kaumuali’i and the labor force consisted largely of the Hawaiian community at Waimea. Fort Elizabeth is one of three forts constructed by the Russian American Company. Forts Alexander and Barclay were built at the mouth of the Hanalei River on the east side of Kauai. Before completing the forts, the Russians were expelled from Hawaii in 1817. Fort Elizabeth by Hawaiian troops until

525 See more on the contemporary look on the work with heritage: G. Ashworth, Planowanie dziedzictwa, trans. by M.

Duda-Gryc, Kraków 2015.

526 https://kauaikingkaumualii.org/friends-of-king-kaumualii-2/ [access: January 21^st, 2022]

174

1864 when the fort was dismantled. These forts reflect the early political climate in Hawaii when foreign countries were vying for influence with the Hawaiian leaders⁵²⁷.

In comparison to previous description one can easily notice the emphasis on Native Hawaiian contribution into the construction of the fort as well as the political subjectivity.

Early 1990s are generally the time when indigenous peoples’ voices start to be heard more loudly both in academia and cultural production⁵²⁸. Previously, the description just informed the reader that the Russian forts were built. It did not state built by whom or in what capacity exactly. It should be therefore assumed that they were built by the Russians to serve their purposes. Whereas in the 1992 description it is stated that the labor force consisted mostly of indigenous people. Previously there was a brief mentioning that it refers to the period of history when international rivalry for influence in Hawaii affected the island’s political system. In 1992 the description states that the forts reflect the early political climate in Hawaii when foreign countries were vying for influence with the Hawaiian leaders. The visible subjectivity of Hawaiian leaders and people, combined with their contribution into the site was a harbinger of changes that were soon to come and to influence the perception of history in Kauai and various commemorative practices on the island.

7. 1992 Visitor Survey by Martha Yent

What is particularly interested that the 1992 survey was also conducted among the visitors who were frequenting the site. It was the first attempt to examine what exactly was driving people to visit the fort remnants. It also gave a hint on what was the perception of the remnants among those people after they have visited it. Team led by Martha Yent listed several assumptions which the survey was to be based on. First assumption reads: visitors

527 M. Yent, Visitor Analysis Survey (preliminary). Russian Fort Elizabeth State Historical Park. Waimea, Kaua’i, prepared for: Division of State Parks. Department of Land and Natural Resources, 1992, p. 1.

528 Consider the crucial contribution to the scholarship within the field of Cultural Anthropology by Lila Abu-Lughod:

L. Abu Lughod, Writing Against Culture, [in:] Recapturing Anthropology: Working in the Present, ed. R. G. Fox, Santa Fe (New Mexico) 1991, pp. 137-162. Locally in Hawai’i consider: H-K. Trask, Natives and Anthropologists: The Colonial Struggle, [in:] The Contemporary Pacific, Vol. 3, No. 1, Spring 1991, pp. 159-167.

175

have a general curiosity about the Russians in Hawaii. When were the Russians here?

Why were the Russians in Hawaii? The “Russian Fort” sign along the highway may spark this curiosity and encourage visitors to stop at the site.⁵²⁹ Despite the shift in the narrative that could be observed in the section “historical significance”, the emphasis in the survey assumptions is still made on the “Russian Fort”. In fact, the Russians are the only association with the site, which is expected from the visitors. The survey was designed in a form of a questionnaire consisting of 3 parts: a visit of the park, the visitor profile, and the visitor survey. The survey took 2 days, and 79 questionnaires were completed. They represented 81 groups consisting of 189 individuals in total⁵³⁰. The surveyors were also making observations among the visitors frequenting the site throughout those 2 days.

Findings from the questionnaire showed that: 64 visitor groups came from US Mainland, 12 from abroad (Germany – 5, Australia – 3, Canada – 2, Portugal, England, and Austria – 1 each) and 5 groups consisted of Hawaii residents.⁵³¹ Surveyors also observed 120 cars that came to the site (either passed by it or just used the restrooms without touring the fort) but did not stay to visit. An average time spent in the fort was 4-5 minutes. That could indicate that the visitors must have found the available options small and limited their stay to the basic overview of the site. Thus, one can hardly call it ‘touring the fort’.

Interestingly, the visitors paid attention to broader time perspective of the fort’s existence, not limiting it to the “Russian Fort”. Also, among the extra questions posed by the surveyed people one was: where were the Hawaiians when the Russians were at the fort?⁵³² The survey summary reads: During this preliminary visitor survey, the visitor population was comprised of largely adults from the mainland U.S. There were no tour groups or visitors from Japan stopping at the site during the survey. Many of the visitors arrived at the park between 10:00am and 3:00pm and the average length of stay was 5-10 minutes (…). The visitors indicated several interpretative needs that should be considered in modifying and expanding the interpretive materials at the fort. The most obvious need is for accurate and comprehensive orientation information, including

529 M. Yent, op. cit., p. 7.

530 Ibidem, p. 11.

531 Ibidem, p. 12.

532 Ibidem, p. 19.

176

improved maps and small signs along the trail (…). Perhaps the mostly highly recommended interpretive improvement is restoration, more specifically the reconstruction of the fort buildings. Because of limited information regarding these buildings, scale models and graphic renderings have been suggested. Visitors appear to be receptive to these alternatives. Additional exhibits such as cannons and the Russian-American [a Russian Russian-American Company’s historical flag] flag were viewed favorably.

Although a visitor center was not strongly supported, it may be necessary to consider a small interpretive building to house the interpretive exhibits. Visitors did not feel that an interpretive staff was necessary. The recreational park users were not adequately addressed during this survey but there appears to be two park user populations. Those visiting the fort as a historic site and those visiting the park for recreational reasons. The distinction, as well as potential overlap, in those two populations needs to be addressed in future surveys⁵³³.

There are no archival materials of any further survey. Neither a visitor center nor any other smaller interpretive building was ever constructed either. The site has not changed much until today. The survey conducted by Martha Yent in 1992 remains as an only source of any methodologically prepared attempt to research the cultural, historical, and touristic potential of Russian Fort Elizabeth / Pāʻulaʻula o Hipo among its visitors. The survey proved that the site was popular, but its popularity would definitely be bigger if the infrastructure was more developed. It is noticeable that the number of potential group visitors - 120 cars who decided not to tour the fort was significantly bigger than the number of groups who visited it – 81 groups. Even though the visitors seemed to be interested in the broader historical and cultural context of the site (one that includes other inhabitants of the fort), the Russian period turned out to be the most interesting for visitors, as expected in the assumptions. An idea to raise the flag of Russian American Company over the fort is particularly interesting. That could be an example of a memory practice that would position the site within a very particular mnemonic narrative – the one regarding the site as a Russian Fort. A flag would symbolically assume Russian historical

533 Ibidem, p. 26.

177

ownership over the site. A visitor or visitors who provided the surveyors with such a proposal probably did not consider it in that sense. Nevertheless, this is how it could be interpreted had the flag ever been installed on a post within the fort premises.

The final attempt to restore the site took place in July 2018. A working group met several times to discuss further actions. It involved among other representatives of Kaua’i Historical Society, University of Hawai’i, Friends of King Kaumuali’i and State Park.

Among the attendees were most deeply involved in the topic in recent decades: Martha Yent or Peter M. Mills. The representatives of Russian American community were also invited, but no one could attend. However, their involvement as acknowledged. A yet another idea to develop an interpretive center was discussed and decided to develop⁵³⁴. Those plans were not fulfilled and the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in late 2019 has suspended the further development of the project.