Blog

It's bad enough a so called great country like the USA creates these legal definitions of what is or isn't considered "native Hawaiian" or "Native Hawaiian" or just "Hawaiian" by which all 3 plus the other more indigenous terms seem to define and redefine all of us, but to have others, outsiders, those who aren't familiar with who we are and our culture to constantly use some if not all or none of those terms I mentioned as well as any other criteria in their little minds as they see fit to define who we are.

It's always the result of seeing who our ancestors were, get a glimpse of our history, and what little inaccurate info. they receive from the media and somehow incorporate all of that to form an opinion, or use that as a criteria defining who we are, or how much we are what they feel we should be or isn't.

The most annoying part of this is that they will always believe that they are right, and that only they know the truth, that only they can be correct and that we aren't intelligent enough to know. And these people can use anything in the book, whatever info. they can gather on their own and try to analyze it in their own way or worse, make comparisons to something not related to our culture or our people and use that to form their own opinion.

Case in point would be Ken Conklin. Without going into details, he has used what little he knows of our culture, language and history and twists it to suit his own needs. Then he takes advantage of people who don't have the time to research on their own and spread these lies about us. Basically de-Hawaiianizing us, creating this idea that due to our past, we have become racists against Haoles. Of course he does this by preaching EQUALITY (a concept to many that means ALL FOR THE HAOLE, not really equal for all people) and begin to present examples that showed where Haole people (for the most part, if not trying to point out for other ethnicities too) have been disenfranchised by Hawaiians or Hawaiian programs, etc.

But it's the same concept because he is quantifying us. In his mind, if he can prove that quantifying Hawaiians, (to a lesser degree for the most part & a term he likes to use is "ethnic Hawaiian" , as oppose to non-ethnic Hawaiians) if not by blood, then by culture or any other means, then he validates why other non-ethnic-Hawaiians should have a right to live in the islands.

People will have their reasons for quantifying us. Ken Conklin does it to validate why he should have an equal share of using the islands for his own recreational use. "thotsins" whom I mentioned in my last post did it to Popolo-ize us, plus he was offended at me calling him out about co-opting biblical people as his own people & their culture. I mean, the list goes on and on.

If you have any examples as to why you were quantified, please share it with me. I should write a damn book about it, I bet that would make money. Hey, the Haole way, I should take advantage of that.

Without going into too much detail about thotsins & his reasons for creating a lot of videos about Oceanic people in general, talks of "Cushitic" people & co-opting of African cultures, I'd like to focus on what he says in his comments, after I had a number of discussions with him in the past, he decided to re-post them under his comments and answer it for the public to see, taking my genealogy from whatever info. he could muster up on the web in an attempt to paint a particular picture of me.

But he writes about my ancestress named Kaauamo and decides to do something that may be familiar to others here on MW when people try to deface kupuna, and he says that Kaauamo was mixed herself. He says further that this process is assimilation when foreigners absorb the culture (referring to Kaauamo's Pake husband), which he claims wipes out the culture slowly by passing it on to foreigners. In other words, he's saying that, in his eyes, we aren't "pure", which is a Haole concept which I've mentioned too many times, and because of that, we are a product of foreigner and we (not the pure ones) are the ones who keep the culture.

So this is his video of HIS "American" or "Haole" concept of educating people as to what our people should look like.

Just two weeks ago I had an ignorant Filipina quantify my Filipinoness, diminishing it in order to make herself look good. Odd that should happen to me because most people try to minimize my Hawaiianness or at the same time maximize my Filipinoness. But the reasoning for that is always, and I mean ALWAYS the same. And that is to prove to others how little or how much a person is of their mixed or "other" heritage. Basically they're quantifying according to their own needs.

Forget about how much Hawaiians are constantly quantified, if not by these idiots like thotsins, or by each other (other Hawaiians) and the same applies to other indigenous people. But rather, why aren't HAOLES quantified? Why aren't people saying how little or how much Haole one has? Is everyone else's perception that the world would turn out all Haole? People seem to minimize in quantity our 'Oiwi ancestry, never how much Haole we are becoming or how much Asian we are becoming. WHY?

Why can't anyone talk about how Haoles are becoming more Haole or non-Haoles are becoming more Haole and how little Haole one may have or what privileges Haoles have and becoming more Haole may or may not change that status?

People like thotsins will always feel that they know exactly what is a _______ (insert appropriate ethnicity) based on their own fucked up logic, whether it was induced by a Haole or American system or not. But their purpose for doing that is to justify in their own mind, that they are the benefactors of either some type of compensation (if not trying to remove such a thing from us) or some type of credibility when it comes to facts & education and that only they, those that are more Haolefied understand facts & evidence and that we're too uneducated to know these things.

" "evil-doers" and racists, and praise from talk-show hosts
and Sarah Palin as "the real Americans," Tea Party America seems to be
taking on
a new and separate identity.

Ethnonationalism -- the recognitionof an
embryonic people that they are different from their neighbors, and the
concomitant drive to live apart -- is, as Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote
20 years
ago, a more powerful force than any ideology, be it communism, fascism
or
democracy.

Ethnonationalism is the pre-eminent force of the agewe have
entered, the creator and destroyer of empires and nations. Even as
Schlesinger
was writing his "Disuniting of America," Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union
were
disintegrating into 22 new nations, along the lines of ethnicity. In
Dagestan,
Ingushetia, Chechnya, Ossetia and Abkhazia, the process proceeds
apace.

It has happened before -- and here.

In the American
colonies, the evil institution of slavery, followed by a century of
segregation,
created out of the children of captured Africans who had little in
common other
than color a new people, the African-Americans, who went out and voted
24-to-one
for Barack Obama.

In 1754, the 13 colonies consisted of SouthCarolinians, New Yorkers, Pennsylvanians and Virginians, all loyal
subjects of
the king.

But after the contemptuous treatment of colonialsoldiers in
the French and Indian War, the Stamp Act, the Townshend duties, the
Boston
Massacre, the Tea Party, the Quartering Act and the Quebec Act, by 1775 a
new
people had been born: the Americans.

In 1770, New York colonistshad
erected a statue of George III in Bowling Green in grateful tribute for
his
repeal of the Townshend taxes. In July 1776, they pulled it down and
melted it
for lead bullets after Washington read his soldiers the Declaration of
Independence portraying George III as another Ivan the Terrible.

"There
is no such thing as a Palestinian people," said Golda Meir. When she
said it,
she may have been right. But as generations have grown up under the
occupation
and two intifadas and a Gaza War, the Palestinians are a people
today.

Adversity and abuse increase the awareness of separateidentity
and accelerate the secession of peoples from each other.

Obama inthe
campaign of 2008 recognized that "out there" in Middle America existed
another
country, far from the one he grew up in, far from the privileged Ivy
League
community to which he belonged.

"You go into some of these smalltowns in
Pennsylvania, and ... the jobs have been gone now for 25 years. ... So
it's not
surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or
antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or
anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Palin
and Tea Partiers now repeat Obama's disparaging line about their
clinging to
Bibles and guns -- with defiant pride.

As others have done in our
multicultural and multiethnic nation, this people is beginning to assert
its
identity, unapologetically.

Sioux gather at Little Bighorn tocelebrate
the massacre of Custer's command. Hawaiian natives demand a new
ethnically based
government -- and receive Obama's blessing. Hispanics march under
Mexican flags
in Los Angeles to demand citizenship for illegal aliens.

NowSoutherners
are proudly commemorating ancestors who fought and fell in the Lost
Cause and
demanding recognition of Confederate History Month. And state governors
are
acceding.

In 2004, when Howard Dean reached out to "guys withConfederate
flags in their pickup trucks," Shelby Steele wrote that this was
"absolutely
verboten. Racial identity is simply forbidden to whites in America"
because of
their history and white guilt.

This, Sanneh suggests, ischanging. The
imputation of racism to Tea Partiers has not intimidated or cowed
them.

When Obama named Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court,there was no
hesitation in blistering her for showing contempt for the rights of
Frank Ricci
and the white firefighters of New Haven, cheated of the promotions they
had won
in competitive exams.

When black Harvard professor Henry LouisGates was
arrested by Cambridge cop James Crowley, most Americans, despite Obama
and media
suggestions of racial profiling, sided with Crowley.

Why are theTea
Partiers not intimidated the way Republicans often are? Why is the
charge of
racism not working?

First, they do not feel the guilt ofcountry-club
Republicans.

Second, they know it to be untrue. While TeaPartiers are
anti-Obama, they are also anti-Pelosi, anti-Martha Coakley and
anti-Charlie
Christ. The coming conflict is not so much racial as it is cultural,
political
and tribal.

Black America seems united. White America is thehouse
divided, for it is in the womb of white America that this new people is
gestating and fighting to be born.