Talk:Native Hawaiians

I felt compelled to move the information from the [[

Hawaiian people]

header 1	header 2	header 3
row 1, cell 1	row 1, cell 2	row 1, cell 3
row 2, cell 1	row 2, cell 2	row 2, cell 3

] container to a more appropriate Native Hawaiians container since more articles were linking references to "Native Hawaiians" and not "Hawaiian people." Gerald Farinas 19:53, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Subgrouping

I think, if I'm not mistaken, the subgrouping wasn't:

• Native = >50%
• native = <50%

but rather:

• Native = any blood quantum
• native = >50%
• part = <50%

I can't cite the source off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure it was on a state Web page, like OHA's. (I know that the definition of capital "N" Native Hawaiian is actually written into state law.) If I find it, I'll put it here. Just wanna make sure we're putting the right info here. KeithH 18:31, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Found one. http://www.oha.org/databook/databook1996_1998/appendix.98.html KeithH 22:44, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks so much Keith for catching that mistake! Gerald Farinas 18:08, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Template for future "culture" work

The {{stub}} notice is valuable bcz it counteracts any impression that we think stub-sized articles are a good thing on the long term, and also offers newcomers an explicit opportunity to make a big local impact by a very managable contribution.

In contrast, what might be called "section-stub notices", in the article, like the following, interfere with reading, lack the redeeming social value of stub notices, and just look tacky. But we have the talk page available to preserve the (limited but worthwhile) info of a contributor's ideas for what next, harmlessly here. --Jerzy(t) 18:15, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)

Hula

Info to be entered soon

Music

Info to be entered soon

[Plz discuss the extent to which "Hawaiian steel guitar" style is and/or isn't connected to Hawaiian culture. --Jerzy(t) 18:15, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)]

Steel guitar has been a part of native Hawaiian culture since it was invented. This came after European contact, but one still can not avoiding talking about native culture without talking about the steel and slack-key guitar styles (see steel guitar, slack-key and music of Hawaii). Tuf-Kat 06:06, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify my first sentence: I'm referring to the invention of steel guitar (in about 1900), not native Hawaiian culture, clearly.

Recreation

Info to be entered soon

Taken from the page on Kamehameha I "an incredible number for an island chain whose population had never exceeded 300,000" This would contradict the over 800.000 figure told here; does anybody know authoritative sources which would go more towards one way or the other?

Taken from the page on Kamehameha I "an incredible number for an island chain whose population had never exceeded 300,000" This would contradict the over 800.000 figure told here; does anybody know authoritative sources which would go more towards one way or the other?

Authorative? I believe Dr. Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa mentions the amount of 'Oiwi at the time of Captain Cook's arrival at one million to which she stated that Cook did not count the people mauka.

Population count is heavily politicized issue. Stannard postulates high pre-contact populations, in Hawai'i and in the Americas, so that the consequent depopulation is even more horrifying. His figure is 800, 000 for Hawai'i, I believe. Lilikala has inflated that even further. I think most estimates are lower. For an example of argument on this issue, see Population history of American indigenous peoples. It would take some digging to pull up a range of current estimates for the islands. Zora 05:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sovereignty

I noticed that there is mention of how native Hawaiians throughout the US held a plebiscite & voted in favor an interim native Hawaiian government. If it's Henry Noa we're talking about, I think it would be best to name that organization in order to distinguish it from others. I figured I'd say something since people like Zora feel that they are an authorative figure when it comes to editing and deciding the contents of anything "Hawaiian/Hawaii" for Wikipedia.

It helps if you take a username and sign your articles. I didn't contribute that bit re the plebiscite. It DOES need work. It's simply not clear, and it should be supported by sources. I can't even figure out what event it's talking about -- the vote sponsored by OHA? I have vague memories of that. Zora 03:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It helps if you take a username and sign your articles.

I'm still trying to get a hang of this. Be patient. Not all of us waste their time on Wikipedia. --66.215.9.164

Education

Under "Education," it was noted that Punahou School was formerly the Royal School, where Hawaii's royalty were educated. Following the link to Royal School, however, it is quite plainly stated that "However, it is not Punahou School, which was also run by Protestant missionaries." I removed the statement about Punahou School being the successor to the Royal School in this article as a result. Could someone clarify this? 青い(Aoi) 02:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely true. Punahou was for missionary children; the Royal School was for ali'i children. Zora 07:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

So just to be clear, it it the case that the Royal School used to be on the same grounds as Punahou, but was moved to its current location at Royal Elementary School at some later date? Is that where the confusion was, a matter of two completely different protestant schools that occupied the same land at one point in time? --JereKrischel 07:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No, that isn't the case. The Royal School was somewhere in what is now downtown, near Iolani palace. I'd have to check to find the location. It may have changed over time. Punahou was agricultural land, far on the outskirts of town, when it was given to the missionaries. It was desirable property, however, because of the spring there. As to why somebody confused the two schools -- can't say. There's no reason to do so. Zora 06:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"Indigenous" 2006

Seems like the controversy over claims of being "indigenous" (and any special privileges that would entail) should be discussed in the article. I'm more than happy to do a break out section with it, but I don't think it should be removed entirely. --JereKrischel 07:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The link is still in the federal developments section. Eekadog 13:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine to put those links in, but there should be others representing the spectrum of Native Hawaiian perspectives on what it means to be "indigenous" as well. It's one-sided to have links to external documents only for the skeptical POV. I don't have time to add these at the moment, but JereKrischel, even knowing that it goes against your grain, perhaps you would be generous enough to add some links fairly and accurately representing a POV you don't agree with? Mahalo. Arjuna 19:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Great idea Arjuna - I'll find some counter point to balance things out. --JereKrischel 19:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent -- thanks. Arjuna 22:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As a Native Hawaiian I was surprised to see that there was some controversy over the way I and other Hawaiians identified themselves. In all of my 37 years of being Hawaiian I didn't have anyone tell me until now that Hawaii was not my indigenous home. I really believe it is a basic human right for human beings to be able to define who they are. I also believe that Native Hawaiians have a right to define themselves on this page. Ken Conklin's views can better be expressed on the Wikipedia topic of sovereignty with all it's inherent complications. To reference him on a page introducing people to Native Hawaiians seems rather manipulative. You won't find me going to the Wikipedia page trying to define Jews, African Americans, or other groups to which I do not belong. I also wouldn't call it a coincidence if their manner of identification also happened to counter my sociopolitical viewpoints if you catch my drift. I know what is going on here. If somebody wants to point out that there are Holocaust deniers they can do that in a page on the Holocaust but I don't believe it would be appropriate to put that in a page that attempts to introduce Jews to the rest of the world. Keep your politics out of it and let Hawaiians speak for themselves for heaven's sake.Lohiau 04:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your point of view Lohiau, but nobody has a "right" here to insist on definitions. In the spirit of WP:NPOV, all viewpoints are welcome and reported. Please read the wikipedia policies on WP:NPOV. Mahalo. --JereKrischel 06:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Side question Lohiau - if you believe that it is a basic human right for human beings to be able to define who they are, do you believe I have the right to define myself as a Native Hawaiian, even though my ancestors did not live in the islands pre-1778? As a Native Hawaiian by my own reckoning, does that give me the "right" to define myself on this page?

And who do you think would be qualified to judge if you were or were not a jew, african american, or any other group?

Sadly, I believe that that Hawaii and Hawaiians of all races have been suffering the politics of racial separatism for the past several decades, and unfortunately, the claim of "indigenous" status with associated "indigenous rights" is a debatable political point. It seems only appropriate to make note, in a neutral manner, that such a controversy exists. Ideas on how we can either better phrase or better present the issue would be welcome, but I don't think simply stating that upon your personal authority vested in you by your genetic background we must abide by a specific definition is very balanced. --JereKrischel 07:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well your response hardly surprises me. I just don't think Ken Conklin's musings consitute a legitimate "controversy". Again feel free to put it into the section on sovereignty. Bottom line is that you are not Native Hawaiian and you know this. I appreciate your attempts to be neutral but these little chips here and there at Hawaiian history and definitions of Native Hawaiian are obviously not neutral. Again let those people speak for themselves. Simply put, you are not one of those people. You are not part of that genetic heritage. I hope you can deal with that. So far it seems like you have some trouble with it. This is certainly not the first time underrepresented and colonized people have had their own identities deconstructed by outsiders and sadly it looks like it won't be the last either.141.140.23.32 15:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo Lohiau, but you've contradicted yourself - it seems you only want to assert basic human rights for yourself, but not others. The fact that you wish to demand that to be native Hawaiian you must have certain genetics is imposing an arbitrary definition upon others. I am just as native Hawaiian as the great-great-grandchildren of the original settlers to the islands, and your arbitrary insistence that simply because of my bloodline I cannot have that self-identification seems to be at odds with your claims of human rights.

I have reverted your edits once again, and hope you can either help move towards a compromise, or refrain from further vandalism. Mahalo. --JereKrischel 17:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, you will be hard pressed to find any wikipedia guidelines that limit the editing of articles to people of some "proper" racial background. Although you may have good arguments regarding wording, presentation and inclusion of specific material, basing it on the idea that only people of a certain race are qualified to express or have opinions on certain topics is a non-starter. --JereKrischel 17:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You've misinterpreted my claim of human rights. Yes the concept of race is socially constructed at some level but it is quite disrespectful of you to deny a ethnic group their right to self definition. Your rationalizations aren't going to make the native Hawaiian community or identity disappear. You can stretch it anyway you want but this rather naive or "color blind" or "ethnic blind" approach isn't going to erase the reality that there is another group out there who are descendents of a culture, a way of life, and a heritage of which you have no claim to belong to. Can you recite your geneology? No? Then you are not a native Hawaiian Case closed. You may be a residential Hawaiian but you are not a native Hawaiian. Your perspective is very much in line with a privileged and consumerist way of thinking. Imagine someone coming to your country, rewriting your history, and questioning the claims to your identity. You come across as lacking a certain humility and compassion in this area and I find that disturbing. I just thank the creator that there are non Hawaiians who I know and love who are so much more respectful in this area. So much has been lost among the Hawaiian people. Why can't you begrudge deleting this part of the text? What is lacking in your life that this has become so important to you? Please share. P.S. I am beginning to understand why Wikipedia is criticized as a bottom of the barrel source of information. I suppose if you can't get published you can always come here. 141.140.23.32 20:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we're getting into a hall of mirrors here. First, Lohiau, I certainly respect your general position and strongly agree that the pre-contact inhabitants of Hawaii (and their decendants) are "indigenous" by any commonly accepted definition of that term. However, JK is right in some of his points, that no group has the sole right to define themselves. In short, I think you're pursuing a dead-end line of argument when there are much stronger cases to be made that have the same result. In other words, JK is right in pointing out that it is highly problematic to suggest that non-Jews can't add something to the discussion about Jews, non-Europeans about Europeans, etc. Others can and should contribute to those discussions and investigations. However, I think this is somewhat moot since the people you (and I) define as "indigenous" coincides with what the commonly accepted defnition of that term is; I suggest that this is a much stronger line of argument, as I already have done with JK. To JK, there is no law (or rule) that says you can't identify yourself however you wish to, but as I have no doubt you are aware, this -- to say the least -- rubs a lot of people (including a lot of non-Native Hawaiians [using the common definition] the wrong way and is indeed seen as disrespectful. Having grown up here you are obviously aware of this and in so self-describing are trying to make a point or be provocative. Such is your right, but I would ask you to please refrain from trying to problematize a standard definition of "indigenous". A wikipedia article is not the place to present your philosophical point or to provoke a debate; we should be presenting the facts as commonly understood and reflecting the consensus understanding of definitions. Arjuna 20:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo for trying to intervene. I have been thinking a lot about this. Let me be succinct. I had no idea that Hawaiians as indigenous was considered "controversial". It seems rather apparent to me that they are a First Nation people. To put that up for debate is very disconcerting. The person who is putting that up for debate is Ken Conklin. He is not even a cultural anthropologist. I assumed I was reading an article from a credible source until I got into the middle of the article. I am not convinced that his arguments constitute a well established "controversy" in this area. I would be in favor of leaving that discussion once again for a page on Sovereignty issues or a page on Indigenous Peoples issues. As it now stands it appears to be an inconspicuous way for Ken Conklin to subvert the Hawaiian identity. I don't trust him. I used to like Wikipedia but I am beginning to understand now how it can be problem. I also don't appreciate being called a vandal. Jere isn't the only one who has a claim to this space.141.140.23.32 21:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Lohiau (?), I could not agree more. While the definition of indigenous has some degree of variation, I think some are attempting to twist it out of any meaning whatsoever. Such is the inherent contested nature of post-modern linguistic definitions, but this this article is not the place. JK is obviously going to disagree, but to me Conklin's views are "fringe" and do not merit inclusion in this article. Furthermore, Conklin's political agenda would also disqualify this information based on the Wikipolicy that this constitutes POV-pushing. I also request JK to desist in throwing out the word "vandalism" in such a cavalier manner; I can only assume this is intended to intimidate, but it is at the very least against the spirit of Wikipedia. Arjuna 22:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

E kala mai, my use of the word "vandalism" is not meant to be intimidating, but informative - apologies if it comes off as being cavalier. That being said, the idea of native Hawaiians being "indigenous", although perhaps not controversial in and of itself outside of any particular context, becomes controversial when that label is used as an excuse to justify special privileges. In this case, Ken Conklin's writings and POV are certainly acceptable to cite and note.

Secondly, Lohiau, it is just as disrespectful for you to inisist that I am not native Hawaiian as it would be for me to insist that you in fact are simply a native Tahitian colonizer of the Hawaiian islands from 1000AD. You simply start your measuring stick at a different arbitrary point in history to mine. Accept the fact that both your and my ancestors, for over 100 years, have lived together and built a cultural Hawaiian identity that would be diminished if any part of it was taken away. Although you may be sincere in your beliefs, please understand that your fears about "coming to your country, rewriting your history, and questioning the claims to your identity" goes both ways - when someone who has been born and raised on the mainland, but has the proper bloodline to declare themselves "indigenous" to my homeland comes to my land, rewrites my history, and questions claims about my identity, I feel just as offended. He Hawaii au, and the reason why this is so important to me Lohiau is because I believe very sincerely that we all all native earthans, all humans, all related, and that definitions and separations that people try to impose on us, especially in Hawaii, are an insidious evil, worse than nearly all that can be imagined. The beauty and power of those people of Hawaii pre-1778 was their embrace of this idea, this concept that we were all brothers and sisters. To see people with fractional bloodlines disparage others for not having the proper geneology is truly abhorrent to me - and can be traced back to racial demagogues such as William Gibson in the 1800s and sovereignty activists starting in the 1970s.

I believe we can work to make this article better, and would be happy to consider alternatives you could suggest to wording and balance, but believe your removal of sourced and cited material is inappropriate. Please revert your changes and continue the discussion. I'll wait a day for your response before reverting it myself. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 03:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa -- to both parties, let's take a step back away from what's getting a bit too personal and doesn't really add to the goal here. But there are some points of substance here I want to address. First, JK, there are no grounds for suggesting that the people who were here when Cook arrived were "Tahitian colonizers" who extirpated the first Hawaiian inhabitants who came from the Marquesas. As I previously discussed with you elsewhere, the evidence for two waves of migration is ambiguous, and there is no evidence whatsoever that assuming there was a second wave that it was genocidal in nature. And of course although you are entitled to the opinion that the "definitions and separations that people try to impose on us, especially in Hawaii, are an insidious evil", I hope you will also try to appreciate the fact that ethnic identity can also be -- among many other good things -- a thing to be celebrated by those outside a particular ethnic group as well. To assert otherwise could be seen by the ungenerous as a negation of cultural diversity. I am not suggesting you are, just that you may want to consider the danger that such statements could be perceived as such. That said, obviously there are some cases where people do use ethnic identity as not just a wedge, but as a marker for exclusion (and worse!), and you are certainly right to condemn that when and wherever it happens. But it certainly isn't necessarily (or even often) the case. I agree with you that it is odd that those born here in Hawaii, which does have a unique identity based on the aloha spirit of the indigenous Hawaiians, and to which numerous non-Hawaiian immigrants have contributed and share, are not considered (as in other U.S. states) as "native Hawaiians". I don't have a good answer to this, other than the fact that you can certainly identify as such (although you run a risk among some in doing so), but well... I would suggest that maybe the unique history of this place makes it special in that regard. And to Lohiau, although I respect your position on this, and in many cases I share your position, please try to separate JK's personal views from the substance of the material in question. This has been getting a little too personal, and I think it would serve the article much better if we all stopped making it so. Aloha. Arjuna 04:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo Arjuna, I agree with most of what you say. However, Lohiau's characterization of me as being a "colonizer" is just as unfounded as the idea of simply labeling people with ancestry pre-1778 in Hawaii "Tahitian colonizers" - I used the term in an exaggerated sense, trying to demonstrate what Lohiau's position looked like from the other foot. Certainly no argument can be made that immigration to Hawaii post-1778 was genocidal...although one may make the argument that Kamehameha's conquest and the forced labor of the kama'ainana to harvest sandalwood for their ali'i was.

Insofar as getting personal, I only do so in the spirit of sharing my mana'o, as Lohiau asked me directly, "What is lacking in your life that this has become so important to you? Please share." I know that we've misunderstood each other before Arjuna, but I hope to illustrate very clearly to Lohiau, and anyone else, that the convictions I hold are sincere, genuine, rational and based on the spirit of aloha founded in my homeland. I can accept that Lohiau's opinions are sincere, genuine, rational, and also filled with aloha - I simply find them misinformed and misguided. If Lohiau and others were to give me the same benefit of the doubt and assume good faith, we could work more on building the article together than assuming that every edit is some sort of attack.

Granted though, despite my desire to communicate something clearly, it may not always happen so. I used to parrot a phrase, "I know you think you understood what I said, but I believe what you heard is not what I meant."

Upon further inspection of the article, I see that it still includes mention of the "indigenous" question posed by Ken Conklin. I'm happy to compromise on placement so long as the information is still fairly presented in context. Mahalo all! --JereKrischel 05:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

JK and Lohiau: as JK notes we have certainly butted heads in the recent past and continue to do so today, but I think we both realized how pointless that was and so are now trying to work in good faith to see how we can find compromises. Frankly, I think in some instances we will not, and will have to come up with an alternative either through informal mediation or splitting things into he said/she said (so to speak) sections. Anyhow, I didn't catch Lohiau calling you a "colonizer" (and in a quick review just now, I still didn't -- other than mentioning that native Hawaiians were a colonized people, which is not saying the same thing) -- but maybe it's there and I missed it. If so, I'd agree that's not a very helpful thing to say. I also agree that L's personal question to you was a bit over the line, which is why I was requesting to both parties to take a step back. (I'm not being "holier than thou" -- I've been there!) I agree that European settlement of Hawaii was definitely not genocide either, and would take strong issue with anyone who did (not saying you did, Loihau, just making a general point). I have lived in places where genocide was taking place and know what it looks like, and Hawaii -- despite many tragedies and injustices -- ain't it. As for the Conklin and other material, I'm holding off any further contested edits (and requesting you do too) until we figure out what common ground we can find here. I am going to make one change, which is simply to re-order the "Federal Developments" section so they are in chronological order, but I don't suspect this is controversial. Now, as for Conklin, I still have big problems with that as you know, but let's start a separate discussion on that one -- but have to run now. Cheers, Arjuna 08:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly I am tired. I see some of your points Jere. Maybe there will be a day when race and ethnicity are no longer an issue in our world but I am in no hurry to put the last nail in the coffin especially when so much as been lost among native Hawaiian people. I agree with Arjuna that ethnic distinctions can cut both ways in being both a positive and negative force. It is obvious to me that our lines of thinking have deep historical antecedants and are attached to our personal experiences and these differences are not going to disappear anytime soon. The system is not perfect and probably will never be but I believe I can preserve the integrity of the native Hawaiian consciousness and identity without creating any undue disrespect toward people of other cultures and origins. Let me re-focus my argument by saying that my anger began with a linked reference to Ken Conklin. When I read his article I thought I was reading something from a social scientist and instead I realized I was reading some form of propaganda. I believe a link to this kind of literature weakens the integrity of Wikipedia. Once again, if people want to have a debate about what constitutes "indigenous" they can do that on a page called "indigenous people" complete with appropriate citations to established social scientists and scholars. Thanks for having this dialogue with me. It has been rather emotional and exhausting for me but good for my thinking.141.140.23.32 15:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo for your comments Lohiau. I understand that these contentious issues can bring up anger in the most mild mannered of people, and respect your reaction as valid and genuine.

If I have a hope, it is that one day, every human on the planet will be native Hawaiian by blood or by spirit, and that there will be no distinction between the two. I know this directly conflicts with your hope of preserving the "integrity" you speak of, but I believe it is the true desires of our kupuna. Native Hawaiians have succeeded in ways that no other pacific islanders have, and they did so by embracing everyone as their equal, as their brother, as the same. The first constitution given by Kamehameha III in 1840 proclaims that all men were "of one blood". I believe in that sentiment.

That being said, I understand that there are those who feel that the ali'i were sellouts, didn't represent the wishes of the kama'ainana, and that the "spirit of aloha" which embraced everyone as equal is not representative of the ancient religion and culture of Hawaii. For our society with haves and have nots, it can be quite a compelling story to believe that there was a golden age in the past which could be recaptured.

I also understand that Conklin writes in dramatic terms, and tries to push a lot of buttons - but I've found over the years that besides the rhetoric, he does in fact have important knowledge to offer for our collective understanding. I also believe that Conklin does have a spiritual connection to the islands, and that much of his rhetoric is an expression of genuine and heartfelt dismay - his personal story of embracing native Hawaiian culture, questioning some of their assertions, and then being castigated for challenging their historical myths is a very interesting one.[1]

Anyway, please continue to help me make these articles better - I'm sure that between us all we can do a good job of finding a truly NPOV. Mahalo. --JereKrischel 16:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it has been an interesting discussion. In all my years of being in Hawaii I have known so many mixed race people and part Hawaiian people and they were always part of the community and part of my family. Nobody in these circles ever had a problem with Hawaiians making an indigenous claim. It just made sense. I can't think of no better way for anyone to isolate themselves further from the Hawaiian community than by questioning this claim.Lohiau 04:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo for the interesting discussion as well, I hope you continue to contribute! Being born and raised in Hawaii, with direct ancestors going back to the 1800s, and lots of family and cousins going back pre-1778, only really fringe group part-Hawaiians ever made claims of being "indigenous" and demanding special rights when I was growing up. The dividing line was always "local" vs. "haole", and whether or not you had the proper blood didn't matter - Waianae is Waianae, whether or not you're full portuguese or full native Hawaiian.

Since I've left Hawaii, though, it seems that the radicals have moved mountains, and that the victimhood industry is flowing full swing. I would never have thought that they could have gotten the distorted Apology Resolution passed, but they managed to sneak it by everyone. People still venerate Keanu Sai, even after he swindled people out of their houses...auwe!

Anyway, please continue to contribute - we may always disagree, but working together we can still make improvements. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 04:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to submit this as a general comment, to no one in particular. I find it offensive when people describe themselves as Hawaiian, simply because they have lived here for x-amount of years. If we allow people to pervert ethnicity in this manner, terms lose all distinction. Maybe these people want to be identified with a place, but why should Hawaiians be forced to give up their genetic identity? To make a few insecure people feel at home? To take that away from people who have been nothing but screwed in the past strikes me as the ultimate conceit.

It's a fair compromise to refer to yourself as local. Just because you have lived here, does not mean that you or your forebears lost what my kupuna have, which goes to say you are not one of us. Fancy words and perverted logic do not change the facts. - Imi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.35.96 (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC) jerekrischel, you are so single-minded. Being Hawaiian does not have anything to do with living in hawaii. that is a common misconception and being in college I have heard it many times. Being Hawaiian actually has to do with your blood line. Native hawaiians actually have ancestors that were among the people who were OVERTHROWN all those years ago. Jones11 (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Crown/public/ceded/public lands

I put in more information regarding the chain of status for the public lands now used by OHA - we could get more detailed into the Mahele, and how the konohiki were divided, as well as Liliuokalani's failed lawsuit in 1910 to claim the crown lands as personal lands for herself, but the crucial point is that they were originally meant to benefit the public (through specifically the monarchy at first, but always the government in general in service of the public). --JereKrischel 00:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The edits you made look good, and moving them to the reference section retains the information without cluttering the rest of the text. Cheers, Arjuna 00:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Historical precedent

Sorry Arjuna, when I meant "historical precedent", I meant in the history of the Hawaiian islands, there had never ever been a race-based government. --JereKrischel 00:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough -- wasn't clear before. Arjuna 00:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Overthrow vs. Revolution

There are 12,300 links on google when "overthrow of the monarchy" is searched in conjuction with "hawaii". Mr. Krischel, if you look at the webpage (http://www.hawaii.gov/hidocs/annexation.html) that you based your edits on you would have noticed that it was titled, "Impact of Change: Overthrow and Annexation" and the term "Hawaiian Revolution" was the name of a reference. Overthrow is clearly the more common term for the events of 1893.Eekadog 23:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Given that it is both referred to as an "overthrow" and a "revolution", I suggest a more neutral phrase: "fall of the monarchy". Is that acceptable? (P.S., "revolution" "hawaii" and "1893" pop up 214,000 links in google, and "overthrow" "hawaii" and "1893" only gets 79,300) --JereKrischel 04:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be hard to argue that "overthrow" is by far the more common term, locally. but your edit sounds good.Eekadog 18:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree -- thanks to JK for coming up with the compromise wording. Arjuna 19:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Mahalo, thank you for helping find a middle ground. I think Eekadog, you were correct in pointing out that the pendulum had swung too far in one direction with the terminology. Please continue to challenge any wording you may find POV, and we can work together to find more appropriate phrases. --JereKrischel 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Fall of the Monarchy" is deliberately evasive. A mother comes into the living room and sees a shattered vase on the floor, and two guilty-faced kids. "What happened in here?" she asks. "Mommy, the vase fell." That is a starting point, but it tells us virtually nothing and "does not lead to elucidation." I.E., it aint useful.

If we know that Johnny was throwing the ball in the house after having been told multiple times not to do so, and that the ball bounced off the wall, hitting the vase and the vase fell to the ground and shattered, there is no useful purpose to write"The Vase Fell" unless you are trying to obscure the actual events.

The monarchy was overthrown, by the Honolulu Rifles, in conclusion with Ambassador Stevens and the marines from the USS Boston. The plot had the backing of a hardline, pro-imperialist faction of the US government and the national Republican Party.

To claim that there are other interpretations of this event is to say that "creationism" and the theory of evolution deserve to be taught as co-equal explanations of biological diversity in a science class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.210.48 (talk • contribs)

Besides disagreeing with your obviously POV premise that there was a conspiracy between the Comittee of Safety and the U.S., I think that given the extremes of "overthrow" versus "revolution", "fall of the monarchy" represents a fair compromise. Perhaps you would prefer, "the Hawaiian Revolution, which overthrew the monarchy"? --JereKrischel 23:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Spelling of "Hawaii"

According to long-established usage in federal and state government documents, it is the State of "Hawaii" rather than the State of "Hawaiʻi". This is clear from Article XV Section 4 of the state constitution --- http://www.hawaii.gov/lrb/con/conart15.html --- so references to the state should use "Hawaii", with no "okina". Besides, this is the English version of Wikipedia, so English spellings are correct and should be used by default. In addition, the spelling used for over 100 years by native writers of Hawaiian, in the Hawaiian newspapers, is "Hawaii" and not "Hawaiʻi". So the traditional spelling of native speakers of Hawaiian is "Hawaii" with NO "okina". I will edit the article accordingly. Agent X 16:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I won't argue with the first point you make. The second, however, seems dubious. Simply because it was rendered as "Hawaii" and not "Hawaiʻi" by newspapers, it does not logically follow that "the traditional spelling of native speakers of Hawaiian is Hawaii with no okina". Your data sample is biased if you are only basing this assertion on newspapers. Among other things, newspaper editors here in Hawaii clearly had a POV / agenda back in the day. Please provide supporting evidence, otherwise I will re-edit the article accordingly. Arjuna 08:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I think Agent X is referring to olelo Hawaii newspapers run by native Hawaiians - certainly they didn't have any POV or agenda against the okina "back in the day"...unless that agenda was simply to save ink. An example can be seen here. You can also take a look at any other of the newspaper images on http://nupepa.org, it's quite obvious that the okina is a fairly modern crutch - native olelo Hawaii speakers didn't need such indicators because to them it was obvious from context, from what I understand. --JereKrischel 08:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

How's this for biased... http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/articles/2004/12/30/local_news/local04.prt

Yeah, that's right--HAWAII. No damn apostrophe.--EightyOne 09:37, 08 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups?

Hi,

This article is of course a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii. I'm wondering whether it would be acceptable to add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups as well... ?

I'll add this Talk page to my watch list, and wait about a week for a reply. Thanks!--Ling.Nut 19:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC) Welina mai kakou, He ninau maikai no ia e pili ana i ke kahako a me ka okina. Mai pono nana wale i ka nupepa, no ka mea, he mau hana lima nui ino ia e kau pinepine i na hoailona. I kuu wahi manao haahaa, ua kapae lakou la i ka hoohana ana o ka okina a me ke kahako ma muli o ka hana e oi aku ana a nae i ka maopopo paa ia lakou i na huaolelo me ko ia kaiapuni. I koe wale i na huaolelo " (k)o'u, (k)a'u " no ka hoemi ana o ka huikau o ka manao huli okoa e lilo ana. (eia: 40 hoailona i kapae 'ia o luna, he hana ho'emi no)

Wassups peeps, This indeed is a good question relating to the macron and glottal stop. But one can't simply look at "old" newspapers for guidance, because it required huge labor to place such diacriticals. I'm of the humble opinion that they passed on its ubiquitous use because of the work and also because the readers were familiar with language context. The exception being in the possessive use of " (k)o'u, (k)a'u " to reduce the confusion and the result without which would be the opposite intended meaning. (NB: 40 markings were not used above, definitely work reduction)

Mahalo for your time and consideration of this edit/review/addendum

Keahi of Team Pualikaua —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pualikaua (talk • contribs) 09:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

External Links

JK, was there a reason for deleting the three external links? They seem relevant to the article and thus legitmate. Cheers, Arjuna 02:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

They seemed to be a bit like political linkspam, although I may just have been a bit touchy from cleaning up other articles. I'm more than willing to entertain restoring them, could you have a look at the external links, and give me your opinion of their importance and relevance? Thanks! --JereKrischel 10:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

My take -> At first blush, CNHA seems like a non-profit lobbying group, Hawaii-nation.org seems like another political lobbying page more suited to the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement than Native Hawaiians in general, and "nativehawaiians.com" seems like a lobbying effort to promote the Akaka bill. I guess my objection is to the assertion that groups that promote race-based programs are somehow representative of Native Hawaiians as a whole. That being said, even though OHA explicitly is race-based, because it's a state organization (rather than simply a volunteer lobbying group), it seemed like it should stay. I think that as soon as we enter into pasting links to lobbying groups, we open the door to requiring both sides of the issue for NPOV (perhaps adding links to grassrootinstitute.org, or aloha4all). --JereKrischel 10:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I take your point in regards to hawaii-nation.org - this is overtly political pro-sovereignty and thus would belong on the sovereignty article rather than here. I disagree with you on CNHA; they are a 501c3, and thus by law are primarily not a lobbying group. ("Non-profit" and "lobbying group" are definitely not synonymous.) Their website states that they are "dedicated to capacity building and providing support services to agencies and organizations focused primarily on Native communities in Hawaii and the Pacific." This seems very legitimate, whether or not one agrees with their criteria for who is Hawaiian. The case of "nativehawaiians.com" is less clear at first glance, but (again, whether or not one approves of their goal/criteria/strategy/etc.) if you look closely, the site is "...developed and maintained by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs". So while they may promote a political perspective, they don't lobby for it (presumably -- please advise if you find out differently). As for your general point, I see where you are coming from, but would question any facile definition of the issue being a "race-based" one. Though I understand the issue is rather complex, and blood quantum aside, I don't think it's that simple. One can also see the issue as "ethnicity-based". But that is a whole different can of worms that, well, let's not get into. It's pretty irrelevant to this discussion. Finally, I did a partial revert of your revert, since (the non sequitur reference to California aside) it definitely seems an NPOV statement of fact, as commonly understood and experienced on a daily basis here. Anyhow, as for the links, I'll give you a chance to respond before restoring CNHA and the third one. Cheers, Arjuna 09:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

CNHA seems like you make a decent argument, but the "nativehawaiians.com" definitely seems to be purposed to promote specific legislation. AFAIK, OHA spent several million dollars last year lobbying for the Akaka Bill, although I cannot say for sure they counted the money spent on "nativehawaiians.com" as part of that. I made some modifications of your revert, since it seemed to be insisting on a usage without any authority. Also, check out some of my other changes, some to be more clear, others to be more true to the source material cited. Mahalo again for your attention! --JereKrischel 09:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

JK, ok -- seems fair enough. I'll add CNHA back but leave the others out. I'm going flat out here lately, and haven't had time for anything other than the mindless 3 minute random article copy edit for sheer escapism, but I'll have a look at your other changes soon too. Mahalo back to you as well. Cheers, Arjuna 23:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Celebrations?

I'm having a problem with the entire idea of "native Hawaiian" celebrations as a race-based topic. None of the holidays on the list of state of Hawaii holidays are racially limited, and it seems like it is inappropriate to conflate Hawaiian holidays with "native Hawaiian" holidays. There are no specifically "native Hawaiian" holidays, especially after Kaahumanu's destruction of the old religion. Perhaps any ancient holidays may be appropriate to list here, but anything dating from the multi-ethnic Kingdom period doesn't seem right. Comments? --JereKrischel 07:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not my bailiwick, but my sense is that it doesn't necessarily have to be a big deal in terms of how it's represented. Agreed that the old "holidays" (itself a Western construct -- they would have been seen as festival/sacred days but not holidays as we now experience them -- are no longer the locus of most Hawaiians' celebrations. However, there are holiday seasons -- ex. makahiki -- but these aren't really exclusionary. People regardless of ethnicity generally kind of "observes" or at least pays homage to these here, and it doesn't seem to be a big deal -- this is an imperfect analogy that perhaps some people might attack me for, but it sort of is experienced in the same way that you don't have to be Irish to celebrate St. Patrick's. It's a way to honor Hawaiian traditions without being political one way or another. My two cents. Arjuna 09:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Makahiki is the only ancient holiday I've ever heard of, and it's an entire season. I did find an article regarding a racially exclusive ceremony on Haleakala related to makahiki, [2], but it only reports a small group of people recreating a ceremony for 1999 and 2000...no info on whether or not the celebration has continued, or whether it continues to be racially exclusive, or whether or not it is at all representative of ancient traditions, or is just a modern invention. After all, many of the ancient Hawaiian celebration traditions included social customs that just wouldn't be accepted today, including ritual human sacrifices and strict kapu restrictions. I wonder if there is a good reference for ancient Hawaiian holidays somewhere...since the Kingdom period was dominated by christian culture thanks to Kamehameha II and Kaahumanu, much of the ancient traditions were completely lost, especially after those kahuna opposed to Kaahumanu's breaking of kapu were defeated in battle. Maybe a section discussing the cultural gap between ancient Hawaiian holidays and the cultures and traditions of modern part-native Hawaiians would be more appropriate there instead of just a disputed table. --JereKrischel 18:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I spent minimal time on this, but did find a few events that could generously be construed as Hawaiian holiday festivals: see http://www.molokaievents.com/ To what extent these reflect authentic Hawaiian traditions, I do not know. Not being Hawaiian I certainly cannot speak for the community. I agree with your take (although again, I take exception to your characterization of this being race-based -- I would use the term ethnic -- but that is beside the point here): certainly a great many of the pre-Kaahumanu traditions would not actually be welcomed by anyone anymore (!), and romanticizing the past is not something I would espouse either... In any case, this is a moderately interesting topic, and I will ask around with some of my colleagues who might have better knowledge or can recommend sources. Regardless, I agree that discussion of the discontinuities in traditional celebrations would be perfectly appropriate. Cheers, Arjuna 06:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jere,

We have a similar holiday in Aotearoa (New Zealand) called Matariki (although we don't get time off from work though Matariki is celebrated at night time). Now while most of us don't have land to grow and harvest vegetables in we still celebrate Matariki as traditionally as possible (such as reciting oral traditions, singing ancient songs, flying kites and reverencing the patron deity, Rongo-mā-Tāne, the deity of agriculture).

Questioning the authenticity of Makahiki in Hawaii is akin to questioning the authencity of Christmas in nations where it is celebrated. While it may not be celebrated for the same reasons or in the same manner as in the past, it is still celebrated.

Maori rahi (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Alleged role

Mahalo Arjuna, for your edits, but I don't think your reverts are being very constructive. Whether or not you assert you have some sort of consensus from a few editors as to the nature or existence of a U.S. role in the 1893 Hawaiian Revolution, does not make it NPOV.

Whether or not the U.S. had anything to do with the 1893 Hawaiian Revolution is clearly disputed, as can be seen from the Blount Report, the Morgan Report, the 1983 Native Hawaiians Study Commission and PL103-150. Asserting that the Blount Report and PL103-150 are definitive and there is no room for dispute is an untenable position. --JereKrischel 14:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo Arjuna, but simply declaring that your POV is absolutely correct, and that the situation is completely unambigious, is not compliant with WP:NPOV. Can we please try to find a compromise to this? If your position is that the role of the U.S. peacekeepers in the Hawaiian Revolution of 1893 has one and only one proper interpretation, and that and only that interpretation may be presented here, I believe you need to re-read WP:NPOV a bit more carefully. --JereKrischel 15:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No, JK. In the study of history, there are issues of interpretation and matters of fact. That the U.S. played a role in the overthrow is a fact, not an interpretation. This is absolutely unambiguously true. As I have stated previously on numerous occasions, one can argue about exactly how the United States government and its agents figured in the conspiracy to topple the monarchy, but the fact that U.S. troops were deployed (and that this deployment had the effect of intimidating royalists) means that there was ipso facto a U.S. role. To reiterate: this is unambiguously true. End of story. I am perfectly happy to take this to higher Wikipedia authorities if you wish. Asserting that your position on this comes anywhere close to a NPOV is amusing. How I argue this is irrelevant -- arguing styles are neither POV or NPOV, only the content of articles. I am confident that reasonable persons will agree that your position is not NPOV, but ideologically motivated. Mahalo. Arjuna 18:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation. You can cite that U.S. peacekeepers were deployed, but asserting that this deployment a) intimidated royalists, or further b) created an ipso facto role because of "a" is an opinion, not a fact. There are differing views on whether or not the royalists had any reason to be intimidated, or whether or not the U.S. peacekeepers intended to intimidate or not. --JereKrischel 21:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

JK, you're incorrigible! I have business to attend to now, and so have no time to further pursue this until this evening, but let's agree that we have reached an impasse and take it -- in a spirit of respect for the other's position -- to arbitration. Arjuna 21:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete my comments on talk pages, Arjuna. I have already reported your WP:3RR violation on History of Hawaii, and will seek mediation if you continue to edit-war. Mahalo. --JereKrischel 21:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

JK, I sincerely apologize for accidentally deleting your comment. I assure you it was inadvertent, as hopefully is obvious given that it would be completely inconsistent with my past behavior, edits or comments (and secondly, what would be the point of doing so?). The 3RR violation was also inadvertent -- I simply wasn't paying attention when I should have been. More comments to come on the general issues on your talk page. Aloha. Arjuna 03:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Arjuna, for your apology. I pledge to you I will do my best to assume good faith on your part, and hope you will return the favor. I look forward to discussing the issues with you further. Mahalo. --JereKrischel 04:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

Please explain specifically what sentences the POV tag was added for. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 01:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Aloha Arjuna, I've partially reverted some of your changes, please discuss your rationale further here, so we can come to some compromise. Insofar as "undue weight", I believe I can provide to you at least several dozen references where "Hawaiian" is used to refer to the geographic location, not the genetic background of people. And given Inouye's quote regarding the status of Native Hawaiians ("As to the matter of the status of Native Hawaiians, as my colleague from Washington knows, from the time of statehood we have been in this debate. Are Native Hawaiians Native Americans? This resolution has nothing to do with that."--Senator Inouye regarding the Apology Resolution), it seems that this is not an undue weight issue, but a valid and accepted POV, even by proponents of the Akaka Bill. --JereKrischel 20:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Auē hoʻi au

Auē hoʻi au! Pilikia nui ai luna! Maopopo ʻaʻole au! Kanaka maoli i puuwai 06:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Citation Needed

I have placed a {{fact}} tag in the section Native Hawaiian definitions. The last paragraph of that section is in fact the one in question. Please, if you can source that, then great, if not, I will remove it. mahalo. Kanaka maoli i puuwai 06:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Fein

It is my opinion that Bruce Fein's paper, Hawaiʻi Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand, is a poorly written paper. Unless I completely overlooked it, there are NO sources. If I am in fact wrong, then I do apologize. I however believe that his paper is not worthy of being used as a source. Again, my opinion. I am going to leave it. I am not the one to delete it because I do not agree with it. Kanaka maoli i puuwai 06:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo Kanaka, but you have overlooked it. See the appendix starting on page 39. He specifically cites Kuykendall, the Blount Report and the Morgan Report. What he reports about the corruption of Kalakaua, the refusal of the queen's own hand-picked cabinet to support her abrogation of the constitution, and the fact that the land system was virtually unchanged from 1893-annexation is true, and verifiable.

Whether or not it is poorly written is an open question. That is represents a significant POV worthy of representation in this article shouldn't be too controversial. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 08:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's only a significant POV if it has been referenced in significant secondary sources. Has it? —Viriditas | Talk 00:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge; it's not referenced in any of the materials I have, which is why I feel it is undue weight (it's a significant summarization of a POV, commissioned by an advocacy group, and when cited should be properly acknowledged as such). JK, what do you have on this? Arjuna 02:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

POV tag and use of "Hawaiian"

One other (relatively minor) issue is in the "Terminology" section that "the term Hawaiian..is commonly used today both as a description of residents of the State of Hawaii, as well as a designation of some portion of native Hawaiian ancestry". This is a very sensitive topic, and I don't think the article should get into the politics of it (I certainly don't!), but in my experience, Chinese, Japanese, or haole residents born in Hawaii don't generally go around calling themselves "Hawaiians" unless they have some ancestry to that effect. Whether this reticence is correct or justified or whatever is not my point (it is admittedly odd, but Hawaii is arguably a "special" case in this regard). Hawaii-born haole/Chinese etc. are generally referred to as "Hawaii residents", "Hawaii-born", etc., but not "Hawaiian" -- those who do generally do so in order to be provocative and/or make a particular political point. Such is their right (although it comes at a social cost), but the assertion that such usage is common seems to me to be flat out wrong. The reason I am not deleting this is that I know this is an issue of personal concern to JK, and I'm not the one to do it without inflaming this particular topic -- i.e. I've got bigger fish to fry. Aside from the two said objections, this article is not too heavily POV and once there is consensus on fixes, the POV tag is not necessary. Arjuna 03:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Be bold and make the changes. —Viriditas | Talk 03:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Done -- as an experiment (this is not “my” issue). But I predict this will be a good illustrative case study in how another editor will object, pointing out that the original assertion was cited ("http://www.opihi.com/sovereignty/sovereig.txt HAWAIIAN SOVEREIGNTY (a historical approach) by Poka Laenui East Wind, Vol. III, No. 1, 1984] "Many people think of "Hawaiian" as a statement of racial identity or geographic origin;") -- despite the fact that that material was cited out of context (another well-worn tactic), while I am not providing one. As far as I’m concerned, it is so commonly understood here in Hawaii that it requires no citation. Arjuna 04:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've got some concern with the specific language used in the alternative, but I think we can come up with a compromise. I'll try an edit, and see if that works for you as well, Arjuna. --JereKrischel 07:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I like your counter-compromise, Arjuna, with just a few changes. Please see if we're getting closer. --JereKrischel 08:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Aloha. Seriously and with respect: can you please leave off the definition of Hawaiian thing? I know you have strong opinions about it, and that is your right, I see your point, but Wikipedia is not the venue to validate your usage. I compromised in having there be a second, less common definition, but seriously, pushing any more on this just looks like you are fronting an agenda. And I'm serious about the not wanting to give people the wrong idea. You know that improper usage can piss someone off, and that's fine if that's what they intend to do, but come on, let's leave the innocent and naive out of it, please. Cheers, Arjuna 09:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding previous comments on JK and Arjuna talk pages, for convenience:

Hey, re: Native Hawaiian, could you think about using some other phrase besides "should be approached cautiously"? I'm not trying to front for any agenda, and I'm not trying to push any usage - but the implication that "Hawaiian" in a non-racial sense is somehow "improper usage" seems like a POV push that's been made by racial sovereignty activists. Can't we just simply say there is a common usage in the State of Hawaii, a not so common usage in the State of Hawaii, and that both are perfectly legitimate? The slippery slope argument would go on to say that people should be cautious in using the term "Hawaiian" at all because of the colonialist connotations of the word, and that the proper term is "kanaka maoli" or "oiwi"...can we just leave any assertion of proper/improper out of the text at all? I just get the feeling that you're putting in the warning because you're worried some haole kid born in (or new to) Hawaii is going to call himself "Hawaiian" at some birthday luau, and get his face busted in by some moke. It almost sounds like a threat. At the very least, couldn't you assert that both usages "should be approached cautiously", since it seems to be such a contentious issue? Anyway, please try again - I'm not happy with where you left it, but I've already given my counter-suggestion, so I'll leave it to you to offer further wording changes. Cheers/Mahalo/thanks --JereKrischel 09:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As I stated on your page, I'm really not happy with your revert - it seems like POV pushing to caution people about using certain words or phrases. It also seems like a subtly veiled threat to those who would use the term in an non-racial sense. I certainly don't believe a non-racial use is established "improper" in any way, shape or form, and the thought that someone should feel "cautious" about using a term in a perfectly proper, albeit geographically common/uncommon way sounds like it's pushing an agenda of its own. Could you give some thought to other compromise language you would be happy with, or equalize the statement and caution people on both usages, given the topic's contention? Cheers/Mahalo/thanks, --JereKrischel 09:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding previous comments on JK and Arjuna talk pages, for convenience:

JK, it's time to hit the hay here, but I think maybe we're at an impasse, and rather than try again, what do you say we ask Viriditas to weigh in on this? Crossposting this on your page. Cheers, Arjuna 11:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Btw, what I'm implicitly referring to is not some haole kid, who can handle him/herself and or learn the ropes. What I've seen -- more than once -- are well-meaning tourists who came here for nothing but a good time and only wanted to show interest in things Hawaii who used the term in that way, and when the person addressed visibly bristled, it made them (the tourists) feel rather lousy as though they were bad guests. So what I'm suggesting is that it's not very aloha to lead guests here to believe the terms are interchangeable here when they're not. This seems like common decency not to lead people into being unwitting or unwary participants in this contest. Now, if someone such as yourself or whomever who knows what they're doing and all the subtleties involved, that's another story, but I think the article should reflect common understanding, not serve an agenda, however justified (or not) it may be. Arjuna 11:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

JK, thanks for your note on this. Made another attempt to find acceptable wording. I agree we may need Viriditas and others to weigh in -- a consensus of two would be a pretty weak one anyway... But btw, surely you can find a better reference than Sessions? -- he is probably not the best diplomat out there to make the case. Cheers, Arjuna 04:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo Arjuna, I find your compromise acceptable and am grateful for your willingness to reach out. I'll look for someone besides Sessions - you'll also want to weigh in on the Hawaiian sovereignty movement article - I think I've pushed tone in the wrong direction, but I think you can help keep the content of my edits, without the tenor of them. C/M/t (Cheers/Mahalo/thanks) --JereKrischel 06:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Using the term Hawaiian to describe non-natives is seldom used by Native Hawaiians and their local peers and neighbors of other races. Usage from non-locals, people on the mainland seems to be different. Since we are on the topic of usage, is using the word moke almost like using the n-word?Eekadog 22:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Moke and haole seem pretty equivalent, but AFAIK, moke is a local term, and as a moke myself (now that I've got a belly and a scruffy appearance), I don't mind the usage. I'd love to get more information about how used/unused a term is by what population group, besides our anecdotal experiences. I know for a fact that "Hawaiian" is very often used by native Hawaiians and locals to describe local neighbors of non-pre-1778 ancestry - it becomes synonymous with "local", and is in contrast to "haole" as a non-racial term. The local/haole spectrum is often a hawaiian/haole spectrum, even though some people use the hawaiian/haole spectrum strictly in racial terms. --JereKrischel 23:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't we just simply say there is a common usage in the State of Hawaii, a not so common usage in the State of Hawaii, and that both are perfectly legitimate?

^These are your previous words. So what is it, is it used a lot or a little? I'm not sure which Hawaiians you're talking about but I almost never hear "Hawaiian" used in that fashion in this state. I most frequently hear it used as simply a geographic identifier in the same manner as the term "Texan" is used, by non-locals who don't live in Hawaii. I wonder what L. Thurston's reaction would have been if you had called him Hawaiian 100 years ago. Perhaps you can ask T. T-S.? As for the term haole, I've heard that used indiscriminately to describe local and non-local caucasians.

JK did say that he agreed with the compromise wording, so maybe we should just accept that graciously and move on to something else that we can all try to work together on improving? Thanks JK, btw. Arjuna 01:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please summarize the compromise in a nutshell and add it to the WP:HIMOS. That way, when the issue comes up again, we can point people to that style guide. —Viriditas | Talk 01:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The compromise, as I saw it, did four things:

1) illustrated both the racial and geographic usage of the term "Hawaiian"

2) asserted that its common, but not exclusive use is as a racial term

3) asserted that its less common, but not uncommon, use is as a geographic term

4) identified that there are some people who find the geographic definition less acceptable because of the "political connotations" (since in political terms, nobody from the geographic category of "Hawaiian" is the subject of lawsuit or debate, but people from the racial category of "Hawaiian" have been the subject of lawsuit and debate)

It also added specific references, which I thought was important. I'm also willing to let the dead horse drop, and let the exercise of finding out what is less, more, un-, very, mainly, common to the reader and linguistic pollsters. We all speak from our own experiences, and "very often" can still be "less common" (e.g., if 99% of native Hawaiians use it as a racial term, and 78% of native Hawaiians use it as a geographic term - a large portion of usage can be flexible, leading to more than 100% totals here). Anyway, that was my understanding of how Arjuna got me on board with his compromise wording. --JereKrischel 02:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Generally well-summarized except 1. I don't think use of the word "racial" is accurate or justified -- it is more accurately and less contentiously characterized as "ethnic", or "a term referring to ancestry". Reference to "race" rather than ethnicity or ancestry is a long-running disagreement between the parties here. (If it were "race-based", then other Polynesians would fit the term, but they don't -- it's better framed as ancestry / ethnicity.) 2. I don't understand what JK means in between the parentheses on #4. My sense is that the reason some find the non-ethnic usage of the term objectionable is that it implicitly erases an important signifier of a particular and unique ethnicity/ancestry/identity. Please clarify, JK. Cheers, Arjuna 03:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Arjuna that the "race" vs. "ethnicity" vs. "ancestry" issue is one of considerable debate between us. To me, "ethnic" is something that is cultural, and so by engaging in the culture of judaism, for example, you can be a "Russian Jew" with no Hebrew blood. Similarly, "ancestry", to me, includes both adoptive and extended family, so it is possible to be adopted into a Jewish family, and have Jewish ancestry, without Hebrew blood. The only way I've ever seen the term "Hawaiian" used in the non-geographic sense is one based on "pedigree" or "DNA" or "race". But I do understand it is a contentious issue of semantics.

What I meant in #4 is that the only reason a "signifier" becomes important, is if it is the cause for special mistreatment, or special privilege. Nobody cares if you change your last name to "Krischel". I'm proud of the Krischel family, but that name and 50 cents gets you a cup of coffee. But if there was a law that if you were a "Krischel" you could get a tax break on gasoline, people might be a little more sensitive about that. Perhaps a better analogy would be native American - nobody cares if you call yourself native American (nearly everyone claims some sort of Cherokee or Sioux blood, no matter how white they are, if their family has been here for generations), but to be recognized as an Indian Tribe is a really big deal, because of the perks and benefits that come with it. Similarly with being "Black" in jim crow era Alabama - hiding the fact of your black great-great-grandmother was a matter of survival, since that distant relation could limit your social circles, as well as your public choices of eating, sleeping, living, etc.

I suppose perhaps there may be some groups who are particularly possessive of their "important signifiers", like the U.S. military for example (try and go around pretending to be a Ranger or U.S. marine, and you'll draw the wrath of those who have served and bled). But I think on the "Hawaiian"-DNA vs. "Hawaiian"-place labels, the only reason why there is a particular sensitivity is because of the special privileges available in Hawaii when you have the right DNA, and the fact that those special privileges based on DNA are under attack. It's quite possible that if those privileges were not under any threat, nobody would care, but I think it is more the case that if those privileges did not exist, nobody would care. I leave the conclusion, either way, as an exercise for the reader. --JereKrischel 05:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Keeping the usage of the term Hawaiian to describe kanaka is about identity, not about special privileges. That is why it is a sensitive issue.Eekadog 11:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"indigenous"

I think we're gonna head down a slippery slope here, Arjuna. Probably best to leave "indigenous" out of the intro, so we don't get sucked into the "are they really indigenous or not" and "what does indigenous really mean" argument. I'm willing to try different things out, but I'm guessing the best thing to do is to avoid the issue. --JereKrischel 09:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Eekadog, I restored my original edit - could we hash out a compromise here on how to approach this, before reverting each other? Mahalo. --JereKrischel 05:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Does "aboriginal" work for everybody? I prefer "indigenous" myself (having a botany background, I guess) but ONE word would be better than a whole side-voyage at this point in the article for the readers. That's just my mana'o. Aloha, --Laualoha 06:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

JK The decision to move Ken Conklin's article from the heading was made a year ago, you should remember that. It seems that your technique is to make an extreme edit and hope that we "compromise" back to what you want really want the page to look like. I suggest that you treat all of the " "indigenous" " groups equally and take on the Maori as well.Eekadog 17:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Aloha, eekadog, the decision to move the article from the heading was part of a compromise to avoid red flag terms, wasn't it? I'll look closer at the history of the article, but I believe we had a working compromise in place, and was simply moving both sides back. --JereKrischel 18:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Aloha you guys. Jere, can you explain what's technically wrong with "indigenous"? I know you cited Ken Conklin and obviously he has some different and unusual views, and I know that there are indeed some in the Hawaiian Independence movement who prefer the term "aboriginal" for international legal reasons (which is what I believe Ken C. was citing), but what about the word "indigenous" is actually incorrect? I know you have explained before why you disagree with it as a concept; this is a valid point of view, but it is a commonly used term, so I think it would have to be incorrect to be overridden. I can't really think of alternatives if "aboriginal" doesn't do it for everybody either, but maybe others can. Unless there's agreement, though, it seems like indigenous is correct. That's just my mana'o. Aloha, --Laualoha 18:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with "indigenous" is that it is an arbitrary term that is presently used as a rationale for differing rights depending on racial group. Furthermore, there is very little evidence that this term is appropriate - the Marquesan colonists may be considered "indigenous", as in they got to Hawaii first, but they were displaced by Tahitians at a later date. No serious study has been made as to whether or not this displacement included any sort of inter-breeding of those populations, nor to what extent that may have been true, but Kirch in "Road of the Winds" makes a point of noting the various waves of pre-1778 immigration. Furthermore, even among native Hawaiian activists (say, Kekuni Blaisdell, in his testimony on 9/5/2007), there are concrete narratives about having both previous homelands, but also additional waves of pre-1778 immigration that are not considered "native" (Kekuni talked about the ali'i system in particular, and others have written about that as being imposed upon the "true" native Hawaiians).

The problem is, is that the term was fine until you and your ilk decided that Hawaiians were receiving preferential treatment.Eekadog 06:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be fine with "first peoples", but "aboriginal" has many of the same problems with connotation as "indigenous" - every human who came to Hawaii was a colonist, simply on a different time scale. No humans (regardless of what religious beliefs some may have) actually sprouted out of the soil of the Hawaiian islands. If anything, the only "indigenous" races to Hawaii are those mixtures which have never before existed anywhere else on the earth (i.e., a large hapa population in Hawaii can arguably be said to be "indigenous" to Hawaii, since their particular mixtures never existed before in the history of the planet...not a particularly compelling argument, to be sure, but one that illustrates the problematic use of "indigenous").

When the term colonist is used it makes it same as if the Hawaiians were paying tribute to the marquesans or tahitians. Also by your logic would a mixed marquesan/tahitian person count as a person of a mixture that doesn't exist elsewhere?Eekadog 06:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

So are we okay with "first peoples"? I think it is important to note that there were original groups of colonists to the Hawaiian Islands, along with pre-1778 and post-1778 waves of immigration, but arbitrarily labeling people as "indigenous" or "non-indigenous" seems problematic. Mahalo for all of your comments. --JereKrischel 18:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the difference between first peoples and indigenous? Eekadog 06:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

One other point - I think it is also culturally offensive to lump all the pre-1778 immigrants to Hawaii under one single category. Within the Hawaiian islands, throughout its pre-1778 history, there was considerable change, growth, and difference between various societies, both in terms of time as well as geography. It represents a very western-colonial viewpoint, which imagined that all the "native" people they met were so primitive and backwards, that they must have been eternally in the condition they were in when first contacted by western explorers. Patrick Vinton Kirch makes a note of this problematic view of the history of Oceania in his book "Road of the Winds". AFAIK, "native Hawaiians" claim ancestry only back to pre-1778 immigrants, and no claim has been made that they all can trace back genetic ancestry to the first Marquesan colonists of the islands. It was noted that long distance voyaging seemed to stop abruptly around 1500AD, but certainly up till then, there were immigrants from other island chains - and it is not unreasonable to assume that at least some of those families, over the past 500 years, did not completely mix with earlier immigrants (especially if they were the ali'i). It would certainly be very interesting to do a genetic study, but I'm not sure if people would be willing to participate if it could expose their ancestry as being less ancient than others they currently identify with. --JereKrischel 19:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Aloha all. I've been out a few days with work stuff, and I hate to have to jump back in on a sour note, but what the heck is all this? Let me be frank -- JK, you're splitting hairs and doing armchair anthropology that is WP:OR at best and talking utter crap at worst. Indigenous has a plain meaning, which is the pre-contact era peoples, and, by reasonable extension, their decendants. The term does not necessarily have political overtones, though you are attempting to ascribe one to it. We have been over this before elsewhere, over a year ago: were the patterns of Pacific migration complicated? Yes. Is the topic of Hawaiian ethnicity a complicated one? Yes. Does that mean that the term "indigenous" doesn't apply here? Obviously not, it's what the term is generally used for and commonly understood as meaning. Please stop trying to deconstruct terms such that they no longer have any meaning. I strongly recomment that you put down that Foucault reader, now. ;-) Arjuna 08:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

First, "indigenous" does not have plain meaning - [3]

"Finally, at its fifteenth session, in 1997, the Working Group concluded that a definition of indigenous peoples at the global level was not possible at that time"

Second, let me ask a simple question - why is the word "indigenous" necessary, rather than optional? Isn't it both possible and accurate to describe native Hawaiians without using the "i" word? --JereKrischel 19:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Asian development bank "indigenous"

http://www.adb.org/documents/Policies/Indigenous_Peoples/ippp-002.asp

"As a working definition to be employed in the Bank's operations as they affect indigenous peoples, indigenous peoples should be regarded as those with a social or cultural identity distinct from the dominant or mainstream society, which makes them vulnerable to being disadvantaged in the processes of development."

Clearly, this definition does not apply to the many part-native Hawaiians in Hawaii. They are neither socially nor culturally distinct from their cousins and neighbors, nor are they absent from mainstream society.

From the point of view of "indigenous" people, such as tribal societies who have pursued a policy of separation, rather than integration as native Hawaiians have, claiming "indigenous" simply based on bloodline (rather than critical cultural, social and political characteristics), seems to dilute the meaning. --JereKrischel 19:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

See the article on Indigenous Peoples -- Ok, I'll make it easy for people:

The term indigenous peoples has no universal, standard or fixed definition, but can be used about any ethnic group who inhabit the geographic region with which they have the earliest historical connection. However several widely-accepted formulations, which define the term "Indigenous peoples" in stricter terms, have been put forward by prominent and internationally-recognised organizations, such as the United Nations, the International Labour Organization and the World Bank. Indigenous peoples in this article is used in such a narrower sense.

Drawing on these, a contemporary working definition of "indigenous peoples" for certain purposes 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.

To the above, a criterion is usually added to also include:

• peoples who are self-identified as indigenous, and/or those recognised as such by other groups.

Note that even if all the above criteria are fulfilled, some people may either not consider themselves as indigenous or may not be considered as indigenous by governments, organizations or scholars.

Other related terms for indigenous peoples include aborigines, aboriginal peoples, native peoples, first peoples, first nations and autochthonous (this last term having a derivation from Greek, meaning "sprung from the earth"). Indigenous peoples may often be used in preference to these or other terms, as a neutral replacement where these terms may have taken on negative or pejorative connotations by their prior association and use. It is the preferred term in use by the United Nations and its subsidiary organizations.

So while a strict definition for legal purposes, such as the instance you cite, may be more complex, indeed the plainly understood meaning of the term fits perfectly well with the above definition, which has the added advantage, from your perspective, of not having been written by anyone with a dog in this fight. Arjuna 20:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Arjuna, I just don't see how you take the above, very complex definition, and assert that there is a plainly understood meaning of the term. By the definition put above, Japanese, Chinese and Portuguese in Hawaii could be considered "indigenous", since they were there before annexation, and were alongside other groups during the formation and governance of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

I've put some text into the intro making clear the current controversy over the use of the term, and hope I've done a good job of presenting it neutrally. I don't think we can blithely bandy about that term that has very specific legal and political connotations under pending and controversial legislation, without giving it some context. I'm fine with moving that text out of the intro, but I think it would be unfair to use the term out of context there. Let me know what you think. c/m/t --JereKrischel 07:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Aloha

I hope I don't offend anybody, but I have a couple of pieces of mana'o to share: First of all, can we raise the aloha level here? Eekadog, believe me, I know how frustrating it can be to hukihuki with Jere (sorry Jere, but you know it's true), and the Grassroots Institute and its counterparts piss me off too. However, words like "ilk" are just not nice. That, um, goes for "armchair anthropology" too Arjuna. It's just my mana'o, but I think we don't lose anything by maintaining respect and aloha, even if we have to fight. And ya, I know I sound like a f***ing hypocrite after all the cracks I've given this guy myself. Sorry! But it's cuz I'm trying to evolve, ok? Also, when Jere gets mad I think his typing speed increases by at least 50wpm (that's meant as a complement if anything, J.), giving us all more to read and more tangents to go off on, cuz it's hard to let some of the things he says slide by. Not that the discussion isn't good, but there's some benefit to sticking to the point, too.--Laualoha 21:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as the actual wording goes, what's the decision? Jere suggests "first peoples", everybody else seems to want to stick with "indigenous". I think the question is, can everybody live with "first peoples" (I can, although it's not my preference), or is the feeling that it needs to be "indigenous"? Jere, I hate to say it but I think you're going to have to accept that if the others involved in this discussion insist on "indigenous", it's gonna stick. I understand your viewpoint on this, and I'm not saying that it's not valid. However, if analyzed on a technical/linguistic level, "indigenous" is correct and therefore will win out in a WP showdown, which would take more time than any of us want to spend. Also, I have to say that how people self-define is important. In other words, a person who is being spoken about has a little more (don't get upset, dude -- not "all", but a little more, ok?) kuleana over the definition of themselves than anybody else does. If this were not true, I would hate to see the gay pages! On the other hand, flexibility to accommodate people's personal gripes when nothing significant is lost is a good thing, too. So my question is, would anything significant be lost in this particular usage, or not? Personally, I feel like either one would work, as long as the meaning is clear, and it is understood that changing it here doesn't mean that "indigenous" should be changed all over the place. We got planny more places to duke it out over all kinds of stuff; I'd rather let this one time go. But that's just my feeling. Whachu guys think? Aloha, --Laualoha 21:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Native Hawaiians. Badagnani 02:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Laualoha: Ok, I admit (because I was in a rush amid chaos) I didn't look carefully at the edit war that was happening before I did my last undo, and it might have been bad form for me to jump in right there. However, I think that in light of Thursday's adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, honestly, we should put it to rest (like, try look at the Wikipedia Main Page today). 143 Nations of the world adopted the declaration, with only the US, Canada, Australia and NZ opposing (Hmmm...I wonder why?). I realize that this discussion has been largely taking place within and been affected by the occupation/colonization of one of those oppositional countries, but we really need a worldwide view on this subject, not a U.S. point of view. I mean, even China voted for the declaration...the world has clearly made a decision on the indigenous question. That's about as large a majority as you can get.

This is not to say that there are no issues, and I'm not telling anybody to shut up. There's still a lot to be worked out, and it should be done so fairly. However, the governments of Planet Earth have -- amazingly -- come to some agreement about the fact that WE ARE HERE, and we have rights that need to be acknowledged. If we can start from that place, working out the rest will be a lot easier. Aloha, --Laualoha 22:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Jere:Yeah, I was saddened by the recent resolution - it's been noted that it is a non-binding resolution, but it bodes ill nonetheless. As per New Zealand:

Horomia, himself a Maori, said the UN declaration on human, land and resource rights of indigenous people was incompatible with New Zealand law. "These articles imply different classes of citizenship where indigenous people have a right of veto that other groups or individuals do not have," Horomia said.

Of course, one will also note that the declaration of rights did not have a universal definition of what it means to be "indigenous". One can only hope that such collectivism doesn't spark more violence, as it did when the Hutus and Tutsis were arguing over who was "indigenous" and who was not. --JereKrischel 03:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Laualoha:Yes, it is always good to be concerned for peace. However, I really think this milestone will prevent violence, not promote it. After all, in nearly every case worldwide, indigenous peoples are the ones on the receiving end of violence, not the giving end! Even when there are scattered instances of violence the other way around, they are just that, and are a mirror of the massive systemic violence against indigenous people that they reflect. Anyway, take heart, in the same assembly the U.N. also adopted the Resolution on the Prevention of Armed Conflict (document A/61/L.68), and a number of other peacemaking tools.

As far as the "universal" definition of "indigenous", you are correct that nothing has ever been formally adopted by the U.N., though this has been a subject of huge debate for decades. I kind of think this is a good thing. Indigenous standing is a complex thing, and care needs to be taken that whole peoples are not inadvertently excluded, without the risk that a too-broad definition will result in artificial claims and therefore be unsupportive for those who really need this standing. However, the U.N. generally refers to the following "working" definition given by given by U.N. Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities Jose R. Martinez Cobo, in an often-cited document, Study on the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations: /Cobo Definition

Gilligan's Island was just a cheesy TV show; it's time to change the channel now. It is time for the rest of the world to stop fearing indigenous peoples already, and start appreciating the fact that we are key to everyone's survival. When this happens, I think we will see real peace, and be able to reach pono together. Personally, I'm sick of this state of collision where aloha cannot flow as it should because we have to be so damn protective. I ask you this: do you think things are really going to get better by denying Kanaka Maoli our identity and trying to rip away the few rights left to us? What kind of peace do you want, brah? Cuz unless you want to try to exterminate us all, there will be no peace unless aloha can flow, and this cannot be forced.--Laualoha 14:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Jere: Actually Laualoha, there are many, many cases of the use of "indigenous" to commit violence on others - indonesia and rwanda are two iconic examples. Of course, you may be speaking in broader strokes of history, and certainly the U.S. interaction with the native Americans in the 1700s and 1800s was terribly violent.

In the end, collectivist rights and individual rights are not compatible, and this argument is as eternal as it gets. Where you say we should stop "fearing indigenous peoples", I could say we should stop fearing individual people. I really think things will get better if we treat people equally as individuals. The "rights" you speak of in my view are simply special privileges, and it tears us apart. Having an identity is perfectly reasonable, but asserting that because of that identity you deserve disparate treatment than your cousins is where I draw the line.

I think they should have written a declaration of "traditional people's rights", which would cover those people that have decided not to move forward with the world technologically or culturally - take the Amish for instance. I can understand protecting tribes in the Amazon who have never been a part of mainstream society and have lived a primitive lifestyle during the past 300 years - but we also have to balance this with their right to choose not to live that primitive lifestyle, and give them opportunities to integrate into society if they wish. Just putting them on reservations and closing the door isn't very fair. Part-kanaka maoli, who have been integrated into mainstream society for generations, and even born on the mainland, don't qualify as "traditional peoples" in my eyes, but a recent immigrant haole who lives in the lo'i, speaks olelo Hawaii, and lives off the land would. I would judge people by what they do, and how they act, rather than who their parents were, or what blood they had running through their veins.

I guess most simply put, if we had used "traditional peoples" instead of "indigenous peoples", we may have been able to truly be pono, respecting the rights of people to choose their lifestyle, regardless of their bloodline.

Again, no offense to anyone, just my mana'o. --JereKrischel 18:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That Haole Guy...

Laualoha: What I don't understand is your concept of "instead". Sure we can have "traditional people's rights", diverse "cultural rights", "punk rocker rights", whatever -- I'm all for it. But any way you cut it, there is a host culture here, and it needs to be respected. As far as that haole guy in the lo'i, I know him pretty well, worked with him many times, and I respect his kuleana. I don't think he would agree with you at all, even if he has his own struggles with certain "ali'is" (manini next to his problems with water-stealing corporations, real estate pirates, DLNR power-trippers from hell, etc). It's true that his overworked bitchin' can get real old at times, but in general, he respects Kanaka Maoli and has chosen to live our struggle, knowing that he will not always be appreciated as he should be. And groups like the Grassroot Institute irk the sh*t out of him, because they feed a stereotype that he is busting his ass trying to live down. If you want to support that guy, I suggest that you quit attacking native rights. Learn from him. Be a part, don't be apart. Aloha, --Laualoha 03:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

...& Back to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Ok, that was a diversion, sorry. As far as the U.N. declaration goes, I think the main point here is that it clarifies the existence of indigenous peoples in the world's view enough that it should be okay to use the term without the hassle of reversion struggles. Your issues with the term can be mentioned in the right place, and I think they should be heard fairly by other editors, but they should not be used to override a basic concept that has now been formally accepted on a worldwide scale. That's my mana'o. Aloha, --Laualoha 04:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning:Gonna have to butt in soon

I have been trying to stay out of this. However, Jere, I need you to look at your own edits, please. Can you really call this NPOV? If you can, I just have to say there's something wrong. I do not know who edited the piece that Eekadog keeps reverting back to, but you must admit that it is informative. I mean, I'm not personally a big fan of the U.S. census as an info source on Kanaka Maoli, but it's certainly not a pro-native POV reference! Why do you continue to remove this section? Calling Kanaka Maoli "colonists" is POV also, as is "relatively short history", etc. It sounds like you are trying to make a point, and you are. Unless you can propose some wording that doesn't have this tone, I will have to support the version you are reverting. Sorry. Try, ok? Aloha, --Laualoha 01:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess I have a real problem with the whole "indigenous" thing because it just doesn't have a consistent or universal definition. For example, you identify as "indigenous" to Hawaii, because you assert that your ancestors got there before anyone else. Fine. But don't you have ancestors who got to Tahiti before anyone else too? Are you "indigenous" there too? Or the Marquesas? Or any of the other South Pacific islands your ancestors found first, before they found Hawaii?

Now, if you're going to say that somehow, you're not "indigenous" to Tahiti, why not? Do you lose "indigenous" status after so many generations in a new place? How many generations? Were the first 5 generations of people in the Hawaiian islands still "native Marquesans", and the 6th generation was "native Hawaiian"?

I can understand a contextual definition of "indigenous" which revolves mostly around being separate from mainstream society, and living an ancient traditional lifestyle. I can even get on board with giving such people special consideration. But the bloodline definition of "indigenous" just seems like a shell game - no offense. By the bloodline definition of "indigenous", can we all be identified as "indigenous africans", since DNA evidence shows we were all originally there at one point in time?

Denying that the original colonists from the Marquesas and Tahiti were in fact "colonists" seems POV to me - but if it would help to call them "settlers", and leave out the "indigenous" word (which implies they sprung out of the ground, rather than got there by boat), I'd be happy with that compromise.

Anyway, this is a difficult subject, and maybe we can chat about it more - I do hope that we can acknowledge though that there is a political issue here. If it wasn't all that important for some people to use the word "indigenous", we wouldn't be fighting over its explicit inclusion, right? --JereKrischel 21:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If it wasn't all that important for some people to use the word "indigenous", we wouldn't be fighting over its explicit inclusion, right? In summary, the pot just said to the kettle...are you black? Eekadog 21:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - pretending that it doesn't mean something when obviously it does is a disingenuous argument. Sort of like foot-massages. (Pulp fiction allusion, for those who didn't get it.) I accept that it is important for you to use the "indigenous" word because you have a vested interest in the political connotations that word would provide, either because you are part of that group, or because you sympathize with that group. I hope you accept that I feel it is important not to use the "indigenous" word because I believe it inappropriately labels people and leads to political connotations based on collectivist ideas of "rights". So yes, we're both "black", but I'm not the one denying it. --JereKrischel 21:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My comment was only referring to you blaming the majority of the editors here for the inclusion of the term when you were the one fighting so vehemently for its exclusion. Eekadog 23:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is a load of nonsense and a distraction from more substantive issues. Any definition starts to fall apart if you try to deconstruct it as JK is attempting to do. (Try defining "bald", for example.) JK, you have a personal problem with "indigenous". Fine. But Wikipedia is not the place for you to work through an interpretation and definition that suits you. The accepted and commonly definition, as pointed out previously, fits. End of story. Let's move on to something else. Arjuna 22:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems that I have made an error. Especially after Arjuna has pointed out that people like TTS can be construed as Hawaii "natives." Upon reflection, I feel that we should change the term back to indigenous to prevent any confusion from visitors to this page. Not using "indigenous" strips the identification of being the first to arrive and establish a culture from Hawaiians. Using the term is also more in tune with academic norms. For me it isn't so much a political issue as it is a historical issue.Eekadog 23:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

cool with compromise

Hey eekadog, thanks for the compromise - I'm totally cool with your latest version. Mahalo and big props for being patient with it. --JereKrischel 21:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry JK, I've changed my mind. Eekadog 23:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain why you've changed your mind? What is it about the word "indigenous" that makes you so adamant about including it without any sort of clarification or context? I've reverted to the earlier version that uses the "indigenous" term, but includes important context about the political ramifications and differences between part-native Hawaiians today, and other genuinely "indigenous" groups who are separate in both culture, language and government from the dominant societies of their homelands. --JereKrischel 07:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What is it about the word "indigenous" that makes you so adamant that it not be used in this article? If one didn't know better, one might come to the conclusion that someone who has a problem with that term has an axe to grind against a particular group of people who are have seen enough trouble in the world that they might not appreciate another person trying to deprive them of a commonly accepted identity. Arjuna 08:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Arjuna, could you explain why you are so adamant against the use of the word? By the way JK don't you consider yourself indigenous after only ~125 years of isolated settlement. Eekadog 17:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated before, "indigenous" is a political buzz-word with connotations of superiority of both connection with a place, as well as the right to special privileges above others with less history in a place. It is a divisive and pernicious term coined originally by racist white explorers, and it's as poor a term now as it was then. Especially given the Akaka Bill, which attempts to carve out ancestry-based rights based on this idea of "indigeneity", the term is inappropriate to use without giving proper context and discussion about that particular controversy.

So am I against using the word "indigenous"? Not if given proper context. My opposition is to using the word lightly and without discussion, as it seems you two are driven towards.

As per eekadog, since I was born in Hawaii, at Kapioloani hospital in Makiki, the literal meaning of "indigenous" should apply to me at least as much, if not more as my part-native Hawaiian uncle, who was born on the mainland. Turning "indigenous" into a racial term, or something that can be inherited and lost through unspecified means, is problematic.

Here's a thought - how about saying that Native Hawaiians are the "indigenous Kauaians, indigenous Mauians, indigenous Molokaians, indigenous Lanaians and indigenous Big Islanders"? Why simply stop at "Hawaii"? Or why not also inform the reader that they are "indigenous" to the Marquesas, and Tahiti? Or aren't they anymore? And if not, why not? Go back a little further, why not call Native Hawaiians, "the indigenous Africans who through hundreds of thousands of years of migration, settlement and colonization, finally reached the Hawaiian Islands before anyone else did"?

"Indigenous", as a word without context, is problematic. You want to keep the word, keep the context. That's a fair compromise, don't you think? --JereKrischel 01:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eekadog (talk • contribs) 01:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that answers my question to you, eekadog - why are you so adamant at including the word "indigenous"? What does it mean to you, and why is a close synonym, "native", not good enough to suit your particular point of view? Do you think that without the word "indigenous" it isn't possible to get reparations? Or special privileges? Or coverage under the UN declaration of indigenous rights? If you have no reason, are you simply arguing with me because it's fun? I've answered your questions candidly, I hope you could return the favor. Mahalo. --JereKrischel 01:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've already given a reason for changing my mind in the previous section. I think you may be the only one here having fun.Eekadog 02:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As for "extremely small" or "vastly limited", see Native American name controversy. Also, feel free to exercise that thought on the Talk:Legal status of Hawaii page :). --JereKrischel 01:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

citing dictionary

I've cited the American Heritage Dictionary for a definition of "Native Hawaiian", and I hope that will be a sufficient compromise. The fact that the definition says "member[s] or descendant[s]" leaves open the idea that the descendants of "indigenous" Polynesian people (who fit all the cultural and social criteria of "indigenous") are not necessarily "indigenous" themselves. Hope this works out for everyone. --JereKrischel 15:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry JereKrischel but how does that imply that they wouldn't be indigenous? A person is either indigenous or not.

Maori rahi (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

restoration

JK can you explain the rationale for the restoration of the text? I thought we had gone over these issues previously. Thanks...Eekadog (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Eekadog,

I've taken the liberty to edit out some parts of the article that mentioned so called controversies on issues such as the meaning of the demonym "Hawaiian". I've deleted the sections out because the use of the demonym "Hawaiian" to refer to the Polynesian group indigenous to Hawaii and only them is not controversial at all.

Maori rahi (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Decline in full-blooded Native Hawaiians

Demographers in Hawaii long debated on when the last number of "full blooded" Native Hawaiians will die off (somewhere between the years 2010 and 2050) and the fact most Native Hawaiians aren't full blooded after two previous centuries of intermarriage in the Hawaiian Islands? The resurgence of Native Hawaiian cultural identity contradicts the fact most Native Hawaiian descendants today are mixed-race in various blood quanta degrees, with high levels of east Asian and Caucasian ancestry. It raises questions on the eligibility for one who identifies ones'self as a "Native" Hawaiian in both legal-political and ethnological terms, even if the person has much Japanese, Filipino, Portuguese, other Caucasian and even Black American or Mexican ancestry. Hawaii is a richly diverse state from both local and imported races of people throughout the Pacific rim and being the 50th state of the U.S. it thrived, however it was quite a different experience for the near-death of Native Hawaiians (be it race or culture) whom I feel have the right to protect and resurrect their heritage. But I comment on the article could mention the last "full bloods" are expected to pass away while the Native Hawaiian identity was revived. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been meaning to do this for a while. Thanks for bringing this to the attention of other editors. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if according to the Hawaiian survey of 1984 (25 years ago) ONLY 39% of "Natives" had at least 50% "Native" blood...by now, one generation later, it is evident the percentage is much lower, probably just 25%, and that includes a majority with at least a quarter of white or asian blood. So real "Natives" would be just a very thin and negligible bunch. So all that story about "Natives" is FALSE. Probably all the population in the World has at least a Hawaiian Native ancestor. But what is important is assimilation. For example, 60% of Mexicans have at least 50% of "Native American" blood but they are Hispanics/Latinos as they have been assimilated and their language is Spanish. So they are not called "Native Americans" but "Hispanics/Latinos". If we use the Hawaiian terminology, then 95% of Mexicans would be called "Native Americans" as all of them have some Indian blood...But the same way, 85% of Mexicans could be called "Caucasians" as all of them have some White blood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.32.120.9 (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

To Maori rahi

You said "come to the discussion page". Fair enough. Here is source that the term "Hawaiian" can be used as an ethnonym. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 04:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have provided the wrong link. However, I think you gave the corrected link in the article, and I have placed both here for discusion:

They can be referred to as Hawaiians, although this usage is controversial, as it may also refer to Hawaii residents.

This is a news story covering the use of the term "Hawaiian" in the AP Stylebook. This is hardly fit for the lead section, however, it could easily be expanded and placed in the terminology section.[4] Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Saimdusan,

I do not have a problem with using the word Hawaiian as an ethnonym. The reason why I removed the section was because the section usage of the word as an ethnonym was controversial when in fact it is not. Maori rahi (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC) 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, what I wrote above did not make sense. What I meant to say was - I removed the section because the person who wrote it said that the usage of the word as an ethnonym was controversial. I disagree with this. It would be akin to saying that saying that Holocaust happened is controversial.

Maori rahi (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)