I know this is a Hawaii media thread, but I think it's the right place for this post, given the folks who hang out here.
In recent weeks, the San Francisco Chronicle has run two pieces that caught my eye for their use of the term "Hawaiian." The most recent was a relatively benign entertainment pick noting Frank DeLima's appearance this weekend (referring to him as a "Hawaiian comedian.") Notwithstanding Frank's possible/probably part-Hawaiian ancestry, the word was clearly not referring to that.
The more troubling (to me) example came a few weeks ago, in story about the explosion of plate lunch restaurants in the Bay Area. Predictably, the offerings were referred to as "Hawaiian food" throughout the story.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...AGVFJOAH51.DTL
I don't need to go into the level of detail here that I did with the Chronicle's style folks, as the general arguments are no doubt familiar to all of us. I raised the point that the AP had finally agreed last year that "Hawaiian" refers not to residents of Hawaii generally, but to Native Hawaiians in particular.
My point to the relevant parties was that there is such a thing as "Hawaiian food," which is distinctive and widely enjoyed and entirely separate from "food popular in Hawaii." More or less, my argument was that just because a company decides to call something "Hawaiian food" for marketing reasons does not make it so.
Their response was surprisingly dismissive, to the effect that "it's food eaten in Hawaii, which makes it Hawaiian food." I wrote back asking whether, given that you can get one in Mexico, a hamburger qualifies as "Mexican food." They said it wasn't an apt comparison.
So...what do you folks think?
In recent weeks, the San Francisco Chronicle has run two pieces that caught my eye for their use of the term "Hawaiian." The most recent was a relatively benign entertainment pick noting Frank DeLima's appearance this weekend (referring to him as a "Hawaiian comedian.") Notwithstanding Frank's possible/probably part-Hawaiian ancestry, the word was clearly not referring to that.
The more troubling (to me) example came a few weeks ago, in story about the explosion of plate lunch restaurants in the Bay Area. Predictably, the offerings were referred to as "Hawaiian food" throughout the story.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...AGVFJOAH51.DTL
I don't need to go into the level of detail here that I did with the Chronicle's style folks, as the general arguments are no doubt familiar to all of us. I raised the point that the AP had finally agreed last year that "Hawaiian" refers not to residents of Hawaii generally, but to Native Hawaiians in particular.
My point to the relevant parties was that there is such a thing as "Hawaiian food," which is distinctive and widely enjoyed and entirely separate from "food popular in Hawaii." More or less, my argument was that just because a company decides to call something "Hawaiian food" for marketing reasons does not make it so.
Their response was surprisingly dismissive, to the effect that "it's food eaten in Hawaii, which makes it Hawaiian food." I wrote back asking whether, given that you can get one in Mexico, a hamburger qualifies as "Mexican food." They said it wasn't an apt comparison.
So...what do you folks think?
Comment