More sacrilegious commercialisation of Hawaiian culture...

[kimo55]

Re: More sacrilegious commercialisation of Hawaiian culture...

Kimo,

Do you feel this piece of history should have any bearing on how the religious icons of the Hawaiians should be treated especially given this event took place prior to the arrival of the Protestant missions?

That was very interesting timing, back then; Christians came and filled an apparent void created by a revolt of some of the old ways.
And yet, no void was filled. Christianity did not (could not) take the place of that which was apparently gone, it was a dogma not suited to the completely different Polynesian heart and mind. It helped destroy much of the culture.

Many did not refute the gods of old when some attempted to destroy the kapu stystem, they simply went underground. And many that apparently took on Christianity, did so to appease the newcomers, but inwardly, held dear to their hearts, their old gods and the philosophy/spiritual path they grew up with.
This is why I rant my unsolicited blather, why I propound what I do; I hear from many kama'aina their displeasure of the denigration of their cultural images. A carver/artist and cultural 'expert' I studied with and who I count as among my friends, has been carving ki'i for many decades and expresses his displeasure in witnessing the spread of what we are seeing...
Some feel Hawaiians should speak for themselves if they want to see changes made to any degree.
But still the words of my kupuna echo strong; respect the old ways, and the teachings and ho'oponopono when you can.

As these islands become increasingly... what's the term? californicated... and the more we see island culture turned into a party theme and used as the material for salacious humor, the more the pendulum may swing in the opposite direction and we see kama'aina speak out and step up to claim what is theirs.
http://www.ilio.org/


but then again, what da hell does white boy know.

[sinjin]

Re: More sacrilegious commercialisation of Hawaiian culture...

Maybe the past is more important than the future?

IMO sacrificing the past in the name of the future tends to cheapen the present.

[kimo55]

Re: More sacrilegious commercialisation of Hawaiian culture...

this is one of the many obvious differences and resultant clashes between amerikaner culture and Polynesian culture. In america we are happy to pave over the past, and redevelop very quickly, that which is outdated, And this is in all areas; thought, fashion, language, our entertainment/fads we latch onto, as well as town and city planning and development.
Polynesian culture is not at all so very quick to discard the past.

[Miulang]

Re: More sacrilegious commercialisation of Hawaiian culture...

We cannot change the past; we can only learn from it as we live in the here and now and in the future. Our folly would be to repeat the mistakes that were made in the past. The traditional kanaka maoli and Native Americans believe that they must be stewards of the destiny of their people: decisions made today are made with the futures of people seven generations into the future at stake. When you think of things that way (and unless you're really really selfish, which granted some people are), you step away from thinking about what's good for me only and start thinking about what's good for everybody as a whole.

Miulang

[Leo Lakio]

Re: More sacrilegious commercialisation of Hawaiian culture...

We cannot change the past; we can only learn from it as we live in the here and now and in the future. Our folly would be to repeat the mistakes that were made in the past. The traditional kanaka maoli and Native Americans believe that they must be stewards of the destiny of their people: decisions made today are made with the futures of people seven generations into the future at stake. When you think of things that way (and unless you're really really selfish, which granted some people are), you step away from thinking about what's good for me only and start thinking about what's good for everybody as a whole.

Miulang

Well put. Another way I've heard it said:

We do not inherit this world from our parents; we borrow it from our children.

[Nalu]

Re: More sacrilegious commercialisation of Hawaiian culture...

"Foreigners"? Yes. And "foreigner" is not synonymous with "white." So why don't you call Asians "haoles"?

Because it's easier for them to pretend to be Hawaiian?

That's what's wrong with the word "haole." It's laughable, really —descendants of Asian immigrants yelling about "haoles" screwing up "their islands."

According to Aunty Mary Kawaena Pukui "the" foremost expert on the Hawaiian language, haole=caucasian in todays' Hawai'i. Back in the days of my ancestors, any non-Hawaiian would be considered haole... lacking breath.

I will disagree with your perspective. According to many Hawaiians, myself included, the term foreigner most aptly befits caucasians for reasons that are blantantly apparent to all those who have an understanding of these Islands and its history.

I have noticed MadAzza that you have a very thin skin when it comes to any type of discussion that involves haoles and their place (or lack thereof) in Hawai'i.

I usually paint with a broad brush when it comes to haoles, I will not lie about that.

[Menehune Man]

Re: More sacrilegious commercialisation of Hawaiian culture...

when it comes to any type of discussion that involves caucasians and their place (or lack thereof) in Hawai'i.

So then Nalu, in your opinion do caucasians have a place in Hawai'i?

I'm a haole. My haole friends and I have grown up here. We have and do pay taxes and are not on any "programs" to help us make it here. I have no 'other' place I'd call home. So I'm suggesting that for a big part of the local haole community, we're contributing to better Hawai'i. Not the opposite.

[Nalu]

Re: More sacrilegious commercialisation of Hawaiian culture...

So then Nalu, in your opinion do caucasians have a place in Hawai'i?

Yes, there are always exceptions to the rule.

I'm a haole. My haole friends and I have grown up here. We have and do pay taxes and are not on any "programs" to help us make it here. I have no 'other' place I'd call home. So I'm suggesting that for a big part of the local haole community, we're contributing to better Hawai'i. Not the opposite.

That may very well be fact. Like I said before, there are exceptions to the rule.

[MadAzza]

Re: More sacrilegious commercialisation of Hawaiian culture...

I have noticed MadAzza that you have a very thin skin when it comes to any type of discussion that involves haoles and their place (or lack thereof) in Hawai'i.

I suppose you could look at it that way, if you wanted to put a negative slant on it. I am thin-skinned when it comes to racism, although I admit I occasionally lapse myself.

Even though I'm not "haole," by the usual modern (love that irony) definition, I have a lot of friends who are, so I am sensitive about thoughtless remarks. Heh ... "some of my best friends are ..." well, you know. Just like some of my friends are of Asian ancestry, or African, Irish or Filipino ancestry, or whatever.

I don't hang out with people from my ethnic group because, for one thing, I can't find any in Hawaii! Which is fine, because I don't pick my friends that way. I prefer to hang out with different types of people so I can continue to learn, grow and evolve. It's a heck of a lot more fun, unless one is intimidated by people different from oneself.

And if you, Nalu, wanted to move to the mainland, I wouldn't say you "don't belong there" because my ancestors were there thousands of years before yours were. That kind of xenophobia is backward-thinking and counterproductive. Fortunately, I -- as did my ancestors -- have evolved beyond that. You would be as welcome in my homeland or my home as any member of the First Nation.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: More sacrilegious commercialisation of Hawaiian culture...

Yes, there are always exceptions to the rule.

Nice to know that you will tolerate a few of us token haoles; we're credits to our race, ah, massa?

[sinjin]

Re: More sacrilegious commercialisation of Hawaiian culture...

Nice to know that you will tolerate a few of us token haoles; we're credits to our race, ah, massa?

Are you familiar with the concept of original sin?

How about the saying, "Once bitten, twice shy"?

Having to live down a reputation earned by others that happened to look like me, fair or not, is something non-white people have had to do for a long time. Not so long ago white folks couldn't care less what people of color thought of them, in Hawaii as in other places they controlled. Now that we aren't all bosses anymore we need acceptance by those we exploited in the past or their descendants. Just because I personally didn't participate in that exploitation doesn't mean I haven't benefitted indirectly from that exploitation. Why should I be given a free pass, a clean slate or whatever? Maybe I should have to earn the love and respect that was originally freely given but was betrayed.

[Pua'i Mana'o]

Re: More sacrilegious commercialisation of Hawaiian culture...

The term haole, in its original intent, was one of pride. Back in the early-mid 19th century, children who were born to missionary and merchant parents, but were born in the isles, looked to that term as empowered self-identification. Because if one missionary family was from Boston and the other from Great Britain, they didn't have much in common--the English was different, nationality was different, and their world views were as different as they were similar. These kids hadn't been to the land of their parents; lifestyles, customs and ways from the other side of the planet were the stuff of stories, not any more tangible for little kids in the isles, regardless if they were missionary-bred or missionary-educated.

Think about it.

Haole was the beta for the term "local". And "local haoles" is a redundant term.

It allowed those children to empower themselves, to develop commonality with children who were born of missionaries and merchants.

That's why there's Punahou.

imo, it should never be a synonym for a type of tourist.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: More sacrilegious commercialisation of Hawaiian culture...

Not so long ago white folks couldn't care less what people of color thought of them, in Hawaii as in other places they controlled.

This phrase is the flaw in the logic, however. Any time you generalize a race or class or socio-politico-theocratic group of people, you will automatically be incorrect, as there will be individuals who simply will not fit that stereotype.

I can understand that there are some people who make their generalizations based on the only experiences they've ever had with that group, hence they have nothing else to base their attitudes upon. But having those beliefs be understood does not make them, by default, accurate.

I accept that there are people who, for reasons of their own experience, will hate me simply by nature of my being a member of a long-dominating and historically oppressive race and gender - not a damn thing I can do about that other than to live my life in a fair, respectful, decent manner - not to "impress" anyone or even to change their opinion of my race and gender, but because it is the right way to live.

Where I draw the line is in accepting the hypocrisy of people who decry racist behavior with one breath, then exhibit that behavior with their next.

That is not aimed at you, sinjin, btw. You hit close to the target with your comment:

Maybe I should have to earn the love and respect that was originally freely given but was betrayed.

I try to live by a variation of that; I believe that I must behave with love and respect every day, in order to earn it; and that I must continue to give it, whether I earn it back or not. (I say "try" because I sometimes fail.)

[sinjin]

Re: More sacrilegious commercialisation of Hawaiian culture...

This phrase is the flaw in the logic, however. Any time you generalize a race or class or socio-politico-theocratic group of people, you will automatically be incorrect, as there will be individuals who simply will not fit that stereotype.

I can understand that there are some people who make their generalizations based on the only experiences they've ever had with that group, hence they have nothing else to base their attitudes upon. But having those beliefs be understood does not make them, by default, accurate.

I accept that there are people who, for reasons of their own experience, will hate me simply by nature of my being a member of a long-dominating and historically oppressive race and gender - not a damn thing I can do about that other than to live my life in a fair, respectful, decent manner - not to "impress" anyone or even to change their opinion of my race and gender, but because it is the right way to live.

Where I draw the line is in accepting the hypocrisy of people who decry racist behavior with one breath, then exhibit that behavior with their next.

That is not aimed at you, sinjin, btw. You hit close to the target with your comment:I try to live by a variation of that; I believe that I must behave with love and respect every day, in order to earn it; and that I must continue to give it, whether I earn it back or not. (I say "try" because I sometimes fail.)

Would you think it fair for a woman who has been raped to be distrustful of men in general?

Would you think it fair for a daughter whose mother has been abused by her husband to be distrustful of men in general?

Prejudice is not racism. We all practice prejudice.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: More sacrilegious commercialisation of Hawaiian culture...

Would you think it fair for a woman who has been raped to be distrustful of men in general?

Would you think it fair for a daughter whose mother has been abused by her husband to be distrustful of men in general?

Prejudice is not racism. We all practice prejudice.

Understandable? Yes. Accurate? No.

"Fair"? It depends on how she acts on that distrust. If being "distrustful" means she is a lot more cautious walking to her car in a darkened parking lot, OK, that's fair. If it means that she refuses to hire or promote any men at work, simply because they have a Y chromosome, then no. If it means she throws acid in the face of any man who comes within two feet of her, again, I say no, that is not fair.

But to put it in the context of this thread, what if that woman puts her mistrust into written form, and states in a public forum, that "all men are bastards, who deserve to be castrated at puberty, except for the one or two I personally deem trustworthy"? Do we, as a society (men and women alike) sit back and silently say "hmm...I guess that's okay, considering what men likely did to her great-grandmother"?

Prejudice is not always racism, but it often can be. Judging a group of people exclusively by the color of their skin IS racism, and you cannot deny that is the accepted way you are classifying someone when calling them "haoles," whatever the historical debate over the derivation of the term.

Is there anyone on this board who, in the year 2006, really uses "haole" in general to describe anyone other than white folks?