Are kanaka maoli indigenous to Hawai’i?

Well, there’s no universal definition of “indigenous peoples”, but let’s try this one out:

Wikipedia Entry on Indigenous Peoples

Drawing on these, a contemporary working definition of “indigenous peoples” has criteria which would seek to include cultural groups (and their descendants) who have an historical continuity or association with a given region, or parts of a region, and who formerly or currently inhabit the region either:

* before its subsequent colonization or annexation; or
* alongside other cultural groups during the formation of a nation-state; or
* independently or largely isolated from the influence of the claimed governance by a nation-state,

and who furthermore

* have maintained at least in part their distinct linguistic, cultural and social / organizational characteristics, and in doing so remain differentiated in some degree from the surrounding populations and dominant culture of the nation-state.

Given the rampant interbreeding with other races, you can certainly not claim that modern day part-kanaka maoli “remain differentiated” from their peers, so on that item the answer is clearly NO.

3 Thoughts on “The Answer is No.

  1. Lana aka Ululani aka Lana Ululani on 11/13/2005 at 9:14 am said:


    Come on. You graduated from USC. Wikipedia is neither accurate nor precise when it comes to definitions.

  2. Do you challenge their references to the UN, International Labour Organisation, or the World Bank?

    Again with the ad hominem attacks! Aruge the message, not the messenger.

    What definition would YOU like to use for indigenous? By what criteria do you discern indigenous peoples? Just brown and there first?

  3. Lana aka Ululani aka Lana Ululani on 11/14/2005 at 12:17 pm said:

    I was not attacking you as a person. I am just surprised that you use Wikipedia considering that you graduated from USC but the definitions posted at Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time.

    Indigenous is “Originating and living or occurring naturally in an area or environment.” Anthropological studies show that Hawaiians are indigenous to the Hawaiian Islands and note that it’s not whether the people have been there first or not. It’s originating where it is found whether the people place or thing is brown… or not.

    Ken Conklin seems to want to try to dismiss us as indigenous to Hawaii because by doing so it dismisses our culture and thus our people. I have a problem with that as you can see. To me… EVERYONE is indigenous to some place… including Hawaiians but that is because my idea is a respectful one whereas much of Ken’s is not. Like with his assertion that Hawaiians are not indigenous to Hawaii when they are but I know why he tries to support an invalid argument. His objective is to destroy the Hawaiian people. That is primarily why he does not recognize Hawaiians as indigenous to Hawaii.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Leave the field below empty!

Post Navigation