Kanaka Maoli: Nationalism vs Ethnicity?

[Pua'i Mana'o]

Re: Kanaka Maoli: Nationalism vs Ethnicity?

Actually, that has started to happen...

The Native Hawaiian Education Act has pumped over $250M into Hawai'i since 1989, with a great proportion being distributed to the rural areas across the isles. Further, the nature of these monies have created an educated class, and allowed an economic value to be attached to Hawaiian wisdom, learning methods, Hawaiian astronomy (the Mauna, the wa'a), the accessibility of old printed materials ( nupepa.org , baibala.org , ulukau.org ) the opportunity to see new Hawaiian materials ( ahapunanaleo.org ) the chance for our children across Hawai'i, regardless of ethnicity, to be bilingual (see the Punana Leo link above and look for a Kula Kaiapuni near you). Kamehameha Schools is one avenue, but in terms of impact, their graduates have been among the pioneers in these fields (but it is a discussion of embattled politics and class warfare more than an ethnic one... still, I've no desire to go there).

It is a remarkable accomplishment to see a Hawaiian man, who otherwise would be restricted to groundskeeping, maintenance repair, or land the lucky county job, find his knowledge worthy to impart upon the next generation, earn a good living at it, and be respected by the future kane and wahine that he teaches. I would love the opportunity to quantify it all in terms of future dollars. Or tell you how many thousands of people/ % of population works in these fields. I know for a fact get plenty.

Likewise, the Native Hawaiian Health Act has been trying to do the same thing in the field of health. There is a Native Hawaiian CoC but I cannot give you much in the way of actual data wrt their impact.

So, it is happening...

BUUUTTTT...!!!!!

Back to the sovereignty question. I am concerned that we talking only about the kanaka. In the strictest, most conservative povs, even the descendants of those who were born or naturalized Hawaiian citizens MUST also have a say. I repeatedly have taken a broader, more progressive stand, that Hawai'i state residents be allowed their vote in the referendum.

We are living in a Y2K world. A world that is getting flatter.

[Miulang]

Re: Kanaka Maoli: Nationalism vs Ethnicity?

I'm resurrecting this thread for a second because I was rooting around the Hawaiian sovereignty web pages and clicking on various links and came across one from the "Hawaiian Kingdom" (well, at least one of the various sovereignty groups in existence right now ). Besides describing the way to distinguish a bona fide citizen from one who was not, they have helpfully provided lists of "naturalized" Hawaiian citizens (people who were not of kanaka maoli blood but who petitioned to become citizens and who pledged allegiance to the monarch) during the period of the Hawaiian Constitutional Monarchy (between 1840-1893, at which time the 'aina was annexed to the US via the Bayonnet Treaty).

So if there ever came a time when Hawai'i became a sovereign nation again, would those people who descended from naturalized citizens of the monarchy be considered full citizens of the new government and be accorded the same rights and privileges (e.g. admittance to KSBE) as the kanaka maoli?

Miulang

[Pua'i Mana'o]

Re: Kanaka Maoli: Nationalism vs Ethnicity?

So if there ever came a time when Hawai'i became a sovereign nation again, would those people who descended from naturalized citizens of the monarchy be considered full citizens of the new government and be accorded the same rights and privileges (e.g. admittance to KSBE) as the kanaka maoli?

Miulang

Of course! Would you expect anything less from any other bona fide government if you were its citizen?

[brianca]

Re: Kanaka Maoli: Nationalism vs Ethnicity?

Can someone take a second to explain the history of how the kanaka people came to be the aboriginal people of the islands. where did they come from? did they all come from the same place at the same time? were they, in fact, the first people on the islands? who were the menehune? were the various kingdoms united by Kamehameha all ethnically identical? what do the oral traditions teach about this?

Cheers,

brianca

[Pua'i Mana'o]

Re: Kanaka Maoli: Nationalism vs Ethnicity?

The Hawaiians have always been here. There were also migrations from Marquesas, Kahiki, and Samoa. There were migrations to Kahiki, Marquesas and Aotearoa. The menehune are Hawaiian kupua and are in our lore. Do not confuse our menehune with what Huna tries to pass off as the "people of the continent of Mu" which is not of the Hawaiian canon of pre-Christian literature.

But the Hawaiians have always been here. Wakea and Papahanaumoku birthed the islands. From Wakea and Papa's daughter Ho'ohokukalani came Haloa. Haloa is the first man, and from him descend the Hawaiians.

If you want to look at it scientifically, one of the great remaining questions is the Polynesian trail of migration, sayeth National Geographic. Theory abounds, but what is for certain that Polynesians are our race, and Hawaiians as our ethnic group has been on these shores since the time of christ.

[Miulang]

Re: Kanaka Maoli: Nationalism vs Ethnicity?

I was going to say that there is a mythic explanation for how the kanaka maoli came to inhabit the Hawaiian Islands (the "Kumulipo") and a "scientific" explanation. I prefer the Kumulipo myself!

Miulang

[Jonah K]

Re: Kanaka Maoli: Nationalism vs Ethnicity?

Can someone take a second to explain the history of how the kanaka people came to be the aboriginal people of the islands. where did they come from? did they all come from the same place at the same time? were they, in fact, the first people on the islands? who were the menehune? were the various kingdoms united by Kamehameha all ethnically identical? what do the oral traditions teach about this?

Cheers,

brianca

Here are a few links that might answer some of your questions....
http://www.sacred-texts.com/pac/hm/index.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/pac/ku/index.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/pac/hft/index.htm

[Jonah K]

Re: Kanaka Maoli: Nationalism vs Ethnicity?

I'm resurrecting this thread for a second because I was rooting around the Hawaiian sovereignty web pages and clicking on various links and came across one from the "Hawaiian Kingdom" (well, at least one of the various sovereignty groups in existence right now ). Besides describing the way to distinguish a bona fide citizen from one who was not, they have helpfully provided lists of "naturalized" Hawaiian citizens (people who were not of kanaka maoli blood but who petitioned to become citizens and who pledged allegiance to the monarch) during the period of the Hawaiian Constitutional Monarchy (between 1840-1893, at which time the 'aina was annexed to the US via the Bayonnet Treaty).

So if there ever came a time when Hawai'i became a sovereign nation again, would those people who descended from naturalized citizens of the monarchy be considered full citizens of the new government and be accorded the same rights and privileges (e.g. admittance to KSBE) as the kanaka maoli?

Miulang

I was going to say something about the "Hawaiian Kingdom", David Keanu Sai, and the Perfect Title Company, but I lost my train of thought....

[brianca]

Re: Kanaka Maoli: Nationalism vs Ethnicity?

Wow. I didn't realize that most of the folks here believed in the old hawaiian folklore literally. I think that will be a stumbling block in advancing the cause personally, but everyone has the right to their own religious beliefs. If the new Hawaiian government is to be based on the traditional religious beliefs of the kanaka, it changes my perspective quite a bit. I'll have to read more about the lore to see what the new state would look like.

[Glen Miyashiro]

Re: Kanaka Maoli: Nationalism vs Ethnicity?

Wow. I didn't realize that most of the folks here believed in the old hawaiian folklore literally. I think that will be a stumbling block in advancing the cause personally, but everyone has the right to their own religious beliefs. If the new Hawaiian government is to be based on the traditional religious beliefs of the kanaka, it changes my perspective quite a bit. I'll have to read more about the lore to see what the new state would look like.

I dunno; there are a lot of Americans who believe the old Christian Jesus-resurrection folklore literally, and the USA seems to be in reasonable shape in spite of it.

[brianca]

Re: Kanaka Maoli: Nationalism vs Ethnicity?

In spite of it is right. there are few that believe even the judeo-christian lore literally anymore, and those are luckily not allowed to use that believe in government.

[Pua'i Mana'o]

Re: Kanaka Maoli: Nationalism vs Ethnicity?

You asked how the kanaka became the aboriginal peoples of these islands. My answer was a well-rounded one; it combined that which is our cosmological narrative, inclusively mentions our Polynesian migrations, and addresses latter-day scientific query as to the who, how and why. It was a full-bodied response that left out no perspective.

Relegating it to mere religion and lore misses the point.

[brianca]

Re: Kanaka Maoli: Nationalism vs Ethnicity?

yours was not the only answer given, though even in yours the scientific history is relegated to secondary status to the religious beliefs. you don't have to defend that to me. You have every right to the belief, I was just surprised by it. That's all. Different beliefs are what makes us an interesting people.

[brianca]

Re: Kanaka Maoli: Nationalism vs Ethnicity?

You statement that:

Theory abounds, but what is for certain that Polynesians are our race, and Hawaiians as our ethnic group has been on these shores since the time of christ.

Conflicts with Jonah's links info:

When the peopling of Hawaii took place cannot be clearly demonstrated. It was probably some centuries after the Christian era and perhaps first by way of Micronesia

Which would you say is correct?

[Miulang]

Re: Kanaka Maoli: Nationalism vs Ethnicity?

yours was not the only answer given, though even in yours the scientific history is relegated to secondary status to the religious beliefs. you don't have to defend that to me. You have every right to the belief, I was just surprised by it. That's all. Different beliefs are what makes us an interesting people.

It's kind of hard to explain, but the kanaka maoli, like all the other indigenous people of the earth, have this innate spirituality about them, which is different from being religious. Sure, most of the kanakas have also embraced Christianity and may go to church and believe in god, but even those people still retain a spirituality (mana) that is exhibited in the way they walk and the way they speak and in their gestures.

Miulang