Hold on Jere, I know youâ€™re smart enough to figure out that â€œwannabesâ€ has nothing to do with practicing certain aspects of the culture. This is about genealogy, ancestry. These people are not wannabes simply b/c they brought back traditions that were no longer in practice. Thatâ€™s just absurd.
So apparently haolegirl thinks that she’s a real hawaiian because she’s got a few drops of kanaka maoli blood in her body – and that people who identify as native hawaiian (as others may identify as native californian) are somehow besmirching her birthright. The fact of the matter is that haolegirl is an American, and so has every other kanaka maoli born in the islands since 1898.
I guess the issue I have is that racial pride is very different than cultural pride. Culture is who we are, what we do. Culture is a choice. And we can be very proud of our heritage in terms of culture. And everyone of the islands can be proud of all the cultural mixes there, without requiring a certain geneaology.
But racial pride, the automatic assumption that becuase people share the same ancestors they share some inherent qualities or defects, is poisonous.
Oh now I see. You have that â€œwesternâ€ thought. The â€œ1 dropâ€ rule. Just to let you know, na kanaka â€˜oiwi never had the concept of 1 drop. In fact, koko was defiling. They once had a special hale dedicated for na wahine that had their maâ€™i. Na kanaka â€˜oiwi always kept their kuâ€™auhau (genealogy) via their iwi (bones). OH wait, look at that wordâ€¦â€™oIWI, which has its roots in IWI!
This 1 drop rule is exactly what you preach -> you go and chastise others for their self-identification as hawaiian, as if you have the right to determine someone else’s identity.
If you want to make the argument that anyone with a kanaka maoli relative can be counted as kanaka maoli as according to the hanai tradition, fine -> now you’ve got a majority of people in the State of Hawai’i who are kanaka maoli. But your terribly racist condemnations of people’s self-identity without the proper blood is hypocritical at best.
So are you saying that â€œTahitiansâ€ were known as â€œTahitiansâ€ a thousand of years ago? IF so, why do genealogies not mention that particular term? They never called themselves as such. And if you are saying that we are Tahitians, why do we have a distinct language and culture from the Tahitians?
Well, you also have a distinct language and culture from the ancient hawaiians -> you’re American, aren’t you? If you can go back to an arbitrary point in time (1778), and claim that these people represent an inviolate group that will forever be identified as such, why not take a point further back in time? How about 500AD? 1000AD? The harsh reality, haolegirl, is that your ancestors were immigrants to the islands too. You may have beat up the guys who first came there (the marquesans), and you may have lived there for 700 years before anyone else showed up, but you’re visitors too. The “I got there first” argument is specious because of the evidence of extinguished cultures, and the “I was here longer” argument is juvenile.
John Young did not co-found the kingdom at all. I know that you want to elevate these foreigners in order to discredit Hawaiians but fact is, people like John Young were instrumental, but we donâ€™t owe everything to these people. What about people like Kalaimoku, Ulumaheihei, Keâ€™eaumoku, Kameâ€™eiamoku, Kamanawa, Keawepoepoe, Kealiâ€™imaikaâ€™i, Kalaimamahu, and so many more. All of these people had a hand in shaping the Hawaiian Kingdom pre-Kauikeaouli.
John Young was as instrumental to the formation of the kingdom as any other individual. You want to ignore the fact that regardless of Kamehameha the Great’s bloody conquest, he was not a racist, and welcomed haoles into his family, his government, and treated them as equals. Throughout the history of the Kingdom, haoles were strong participants, and your diminishing of their contributions is a sign of true ignorance.
You also need to know that the term KANAKA MAOLI came up in the 1890 census referring to a pure blooded aboriginal Hawaiian.
Well, since apparently “Tahitians” didn’t call themselves “Tahitians”, and the pre-1778 people in Hawai’i didn’t call themselves “Hawaiians” or “kanaka maoli”, why not just get angry at oiwi wannabes?
Tell you what, you can have the word oiwi…I promise you nobody is going to claim that without the geneaology and bones you so desperately revere. Leave the word “Hawaiian” for all Hawaiians, not just the oiwi.